MONTREAL PROTOCOL 

ON SUBSTANCES THAT DEPLETE 

THE OZONE LAYER 

UNEP 

REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT PANEL

APRIL 2007 

PROGRESS REPORT

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report iii

UNEP 

APRIL 2007 REPORT OF THE

TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMIC

ASSESSMENT PANEL

PROGRESS REPORT
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report iv 

Montreal Protocol 

On Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer 

Report of the 

UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

April 2007 

PROGRESS REPORT

The text of this report is composed in Times New Roman. 

Co-ordination: Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

Composition of the report: Lambert Kuijpers 

Layout: Meg Seki, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP 

Reproduction: UNON Nairobi 

Date: April 2007 

Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from: 

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME 

Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya 

This document is also available in portable document format from the UNEP 

Ozone Secretariat's website: 

http://ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/TEAP/Reports/TEAP_Reports/index.shtml 

No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and 

cited, with acknowledgement of the source of the material.

ISBN: 978-92-807-2829-3 

Job No: OZO/0955/NA 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report v

Disclaimer 

The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Technology and 

Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-chairs and members, the Technical 

Options Committees Co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs 

and members, and the companies and organisations that employ them do not 

endorse the performance, worker safety, or environmental acceptability of any of 

the technical options discussed. Every industrial operation requires consideration 

of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants and waste products. 

Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation - more 

information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and 

replacements will become available for use in selecting among the options 

discussed in this document. 

UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and members, the Technical Options Committees 

Co-chairs and members, and the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel 

Task Forces Co-chairs and members, in furnishing or distributing this 

information, do not make any warranty or representation, either express or 

implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or utility; nor do they assume 

any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any 

information, material, or procedure contained herein, including but not limited to 

any claims regarding health, safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or 

performance, made by the source of information. 

Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for 

information purposes only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such 

company, association, or product, either express or implied by UNEP, the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Co-chairs or members, the 

Technical and Economic Options Committee chairs, Co-chairs or members, the 

TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs or members or the companies or organisations that 

employ them.

Acknowledgements 

The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, its Technical Options 

Committees and the Task Forces Co-chairs and members acknowledges with 

thanks the outstanding contributions from all of the individuals and organisations 

that provided support to Panel, Committees and Task Forces Co-chairs and 

members. The opinions expressed are those of the Panel, the Committees and 

Task Forces and do not necessarily reflect the reviews of any sponsoring or 

supporting organisation. 

The TEAP thanks the FAO, Rome, for hosting the TEAP meeting, 26-30 March 

2007, where this report was composed and reviewed, and thanks in particular its 

co-chair Lambert Kuijpers, for making all necessary arrangements for the 

meeting. 
vi April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Foreword 

In April 2007, The Technology and Economic Assessment Panel submitted two reports to the Montreal 

Protocol Parties: 

1. April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

The annual TEAP Progress Report reports on and responses to various requests of the Parties. It also 

contains separate progress reports by the Technical Options Committees and a TEAP progress report 

on TEAP and TOC organisation (chapter 11). 

Chapter 1 considers the essential use nominations by Parties, specifically by the European Community, 

the Russian Federation and the United States and recommends essential use CFC quantities for MDIs 

for the years 2008 and 2009. Chapter 2 contains the response by the MTOC to Decision XVIII/16 on 

the difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties manufacturing MDIs using CFCs. It also contains 

information on the progress and the difficulties in the transition out of CFCs in separate Article 5 

countries. Chapters 3 to 8 contain the progress reports by the Medical, Chemicals, Foams, Halons, 

Refrigeration and Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committees. The Progress Report by the CTOC 

(chapter 4) contains responses to Decision XVII/6, 7 and 8 on process agents; to Decision XVIII/8 on 

the essential use for CFC-113 by the Russian Federation; to Decision XVIII/11 on the update 

information for nPB; to Decision XVIII/10 on sources of CTC emissions and reduction options; and to 

Decision XVII/10 on laboratory and analytical uses for methyl bromide. Chapter 9 evaluates the 

Methyl Bromide Critical Use Nominations submitted in 2007 for the years 2008 and/or 2009. After the 

presentation of general issues, the TEAP progress report contains interim reports on the evaluations of 

the 2007 submissions presented by (1) the MBTOC Soils Subcommittee and (2) the MBTOC 

Quarantine, Structures and Commodities Subcommittee. Chapter 10 contains a description of how 

TEAP and its Task Force plan to respond to the requests made by Parties in Decision XVIII/12: 

“Future work following the Ozone Secretariat Workshop on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change/ Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Special Report”. 

Three annexes give TEAP and TOC member information: (i) Annex I contains the TEAP member 

biographies (and Disclosure of Interest statements), (ii) Annex II lists the TEAP and TOC membership 

as of March 2007 and (iii) Annex III contains Disclosure of Interest statements by all TOC co-chairs 

and members, as requested by Parties. 

2. Task Force Report on the Continuing TEAP Legacy 

This report was produced by a Task Force which was formed on the occasion of the Twentieth 

Anniversary of the signing of the Montreal Protocol, to consolidate records of TEAP, its TOCs and 

Subsidiary Bodies such as Task Forces. It summarizes the history of TEAP assessments, assembles a 

comprehensive list of the publications, documents the membership over the years and reflects on how 

TEAP responded to the requests of the Parties. 

The UNEP Technology and Economic Assessment Panel: 

Stephen O. Andersen, co-chair USA Thomas Morehouse USA 

Jose I. Pons, co-chair VEN Marta Pizano COL 

Lambert Kuijpers, co-chair NL Ian Porter AUS 

Radhey Agarwal IND Miguel Quintero COL 

Paul Ashford UK Ian Rae AUS 

Jonathan Banks AUS K. Madhava Sarma IND 

Jiang Biao PRC Helen Tope AUS 

Mohamed Besri MOR Dan Verdonik USA 

David Catchpole UK Ashley Woodcock UK 

Michelle Marcotte CDN Masaaki Yamabe JPN 

Shiqiu Zhang PRC 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report vii

APRIL 2007 TEAP PROGRESS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................................PAGE 

1 ESSENTIAL USES .................................................................................................................1

1.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................1

1.2 ESSENTIAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METERED DOSE INHALERS................................................2

1.2.1 Criteria for Review of Essential Use Nominations for MDIs....................................................2

1.2.2 Review of Nominations .............................................................................................................2

1.2.3 Summary of Parties’ Essential Use Nominations and Quantities for 2008 and 

2009 (in tonnes) ........................................................................................................................2

1.2.4 Observations .............................................................................................................................3

1.2.5 Committee Evaluation and Recommendations..........................................................................4

2 DECISION XVIII/16: DIFFICULTIES FACED BY SOME ARTICLE 5 

PARTIES MANUFACTURING METERED-DOSE INHALERS WHICH 

USE CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS....................................................................................9

2.1 BACKGROUND TO DECISION XVIII/16.......................................................................................9

2.2 PROGRESS IN TRANSITION IN ARTICLE 5 PARTIES ......................................................................9

2.2.1 Argentina ................................................................................................................................10

2.2.2 Bangladesh..............................................................................................................................10

2.2.3 Brazil.......................................................................................................................................10

2.2.4 China.......................................................................................................................................11

2.2.5 Colombia.................................................................................................................................11

2.2.6 Croatia....................................................................................................................................11

2.2.7 India........................................................................................................................................11

2.2.8 Indonesia.................................................................................................................................11

2.2.9 Iran .........................................................................................................................................11

2.2.10 Mexico.....................................................................................................................................12

2.2.11 Pakistan ..................................................................................................................................12

2.3 DIFFICULTIES IN THE TRANSITION IN ARTICLE 5 COUNTRIES ...................................................12

2.3.1 Technology transfer and product development.......................................................................13

2.3.2 Case Studies in Transition ......................................................................................................14

2.4 CFC REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPLY MDIS IN 2010 AND BEYOND .................................................14

2.4.1 Technical Option Appraisal – Annual Production of CFCs in 2010 and beyond...................16

2.4.2 Technical Option Appraisal – Final Campaign Production of CFCs in 2009 for 

use in 2010 and beyond...........................................................................................................17

2.4.3 Information needed to define quantities for a final campaign production of 

pharmaceutical-grade CFCs in 2009......................................................................................18

2.4.4 Conclusions.............................................................................................................................19

3 MEDICAL TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (MTOC) PROGRESS 

REPORT................................................................................................................................21

3.1 TRANSITION TO ALTERNATIVES TO CFC MDIS........................................................................21

3.2 GLOBAL USE OF CFCS FOR MDIS ...........................................................................................21

3.3 TRANSITION STRATEGIES .........................................................................................................23

3.3.1 Progress reports on transition strategies................................................................................23

3.4 GLOBAL DATABASE .................................................................................................................24

4 CHEMICALS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (CTOC) 

PROGRESS REPORT .........................................................................................................25

4.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................25

4.1.1 Process Agents (XVII/6, 7 and 8)............................................................................................25

4.1.2 EUN of CFC-113 by Russian Federation (XVIII/8)................................................................26

4.1.3 Normal-Propyl Bromide (n-PB) Update (XVIII/11) ...............................................................26

4.1.4 Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions 

(XVIII/10)................................................................................................................................26

4.1.5 Laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide (XVII/10..................................................27

4.2 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................27

4.3 PROCESS AGENTS ....................................................................................................................27

4.3.1 The CTOC review of Table A (decision XVII/6(7)).................................................................27
viii April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

4.3.2 The CTOC review of interim table A-bis (decision XVII/8) ...................................................32

4.3.3 Case Studies of the continuing process agent operations .......................................................34

4.3.4 A potential list of process agent applications from China ......................................................36

4.3.5 Case studies for the chemical reactions in Table 4.3..............................................................38

4.3.6 ODS emissions and make-up quantities reported by Parties ..................................................41

4.4 ESSENTIAL USE NOMINATION OF CFC-113 BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 

(XVIII/8).................................................................................................................................42

4.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................42

4.4.2 Decision XVIII/8: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for 

aerospace applications in the Russian Federation for 2007...................................................43

4.4.3 Document from the Russian Federation .................................................................................44

4.4.4 Comments on supply of CFC-113 to the Russian Federation from foreign 

sources ....................................................................................................................................47

4.4.5 Document from the United States ..........................................................................................47

4.4.6 The 2007 EUN from the Russian Federation..........................................................................48

4.4.7 Concluding remarks................................................................................................................48

4.5 N-PROPYL BROMIDE UPDATE (XVIII/11, XIII/7) ....................................................................49

4.5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................49

4.5.2 Updated information on n-PB.................................................................................................50

4.5.3 Recent Toxicity Data and Proposed Regulatory Actions ........................................................50

4.5.4 Latitude-specific ODP of n-PB ...............................................................................................51

4.5.5 Global Warming Potential (GWP)..........................................................................................51

4.5.6 Concluding remarks................................................................................................................51

4.6 SOURCES OF CARBON TETRACHLORIDE (CTC) EMISSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES 

FOR REDUCTIONS (XVIII/10)...................................................................................................52

4.6.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................52

4.6.2 Information from the Science Assessment Panel.....................................................................52

4.6.3 Can Landfill emissions of CTC account for the discrepancy?................................................52

4.6.4 Conclusions on CTC emissions from landfills ........................................................................53

4.6.5 References...............................................................................................................................54

4.7 LABORATORY AND ANALYTICAL USES OF METHYL BROMIDE (XVII/10) .................................54

5 FOAMS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (FTOC).............................................55

5.1 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES.....................................55

5.2 VOLUNTARY CARBON PROJECTS .............................................................................................55

5.3 GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIALS OF NON-METHANE HYDROCARBONS.....................................55

6 HALONS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (HTOC) PROGRESS 

REPORT................................................................................................................................57

6.1 UPDATE ON DECISION XV/11 ..................................................................................................57

6.2 IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES IN ARTICLE 5 COUNTRIES......................................................57

6.3 HALON-2402 PHASE-OUT ........................................................................................................57

6.4 HALON-1211 BANK .................................................................................................................57

7 REFRIEGERATION, AIR CONDITIONING AND HEAT PUMPS 

TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (RTOC) PROGRESS REPORT....................59

8 METHYL BROMIDE TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE (MBTOC) 

PROGRESS REPORT .........................................................................................................61

8.1 MBTOC SOILS PROGRESS REPORT .........................................................................................61

8.1.1 Scope of the Report .................................................................................................................61

8.1.2 Chemical alternatives for soil fumigation...............................................................................61

8.1.3 Update on registration status of MB and chemical alternatives............................................62

8.1.4 Emissions reduction of chemical alternatives.........................................................................62

8.1.5 Non chemical alternatives in the soil sector ...........................................................................63

8.1.6 References...............................................................................................................................63

8.2 MBTOC QUARANTINE STRUCTURES AND COMMODITIES PROGRESS REPORT ........................65

8.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................65

8.2.2 Registration Status of Methyl Bromide Alternatives used for QSC Applications....................65

8.2.3 Update on Alternatives for Post-harvest and Structural Treatments......................................67

8.2.4 Methyl Bromide Recapture Technologies Update...................................................................70

8.2.5 References...............................................................................................................................71
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report ix

9 2007 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS ............................................................................73

9.1 EVALUATION OF 2007 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE AND 

RELATED MATTERS; GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE REPORT.......................73

9.2 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE ............................................................73

9.2.1 Mandate ..................................................................................................................................73

9.2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions.......................................74

9.2.3 Disclosure of Interest..............................................................................................................75

9.2.4 MBTOC Process .....................................................................................................................75

9.2.5 Critical Use Nominations Review ...........................................................................................76

9.2.6 Plans to Develop, Register and Deploy Alternatives ..............................................................76

9.2.7 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6.....................................................................................................76

9.2.8 Consideration of Stocks ..........................................................................................................77

9.2.9 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9(10) ......................................................................79

9.2.10 Rates of Adoption....................................................................................................................79

9.3 EVALUATION OF 2007 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE AND 

RELATED MATTERS; MBTOC SOILS INTERIM REPORT – MARCH 2007 (MBTOCS).............................................................................................................................................82

9.3.1 Scope of the MBTOC - S Report .............................................................................................82

9.3.2 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide .......................................................................82

9.3.3 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9 (10) .....................................................................91

9.3.4 Interim evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009 .........................................93

9.3.5 References.............................................................................................................................116

9.4 EVALUATION OF 2007 CRITICAL USE NOMINATIONS FOR METHYL BROMIDE AND 

RELATED MATTERS; MBTOC QUARANTINE, STRUCTURES AND COMMODITIES 

INTERIM REPORT – MARCH 2007 (MBTOC-QSC)................................................................125

9.4.1 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities....................................125

APPENDIX I TO CHAPTER 9..........................................................................................................134

APPENDIX II TO CHAPTER 9 ........................................................................................................135

APPENDIX III TO CHAPTER 9.......................................................................................................136

APPENDIX IV TO CHAPTER 9 – PART A: PREPLANT SOIL APPLICATIONS........................137

APPENDIX IV TO CHAPTER 9 – PART B: POST-HARVEST STRUCTURAL AND 

COMMODITY APPLICATIONS ...............................................................................140

APPENDIX V TO CHAPTER 9........................................................................................................143

10 DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESPONSE TO DECISION XVIII/12..............................145

11 TEAP/TOC ORGANISATION ISSUES...........................................................................149

11.1 BUDGET.................................................................................................................................149

11.2 METHYL BROMIDE TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE ADJUSTMENTS ..................................149

11.3 CHANGE OF EMPLOYMENT FOR FOAMS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE 

ARTICLE 5 CO-CHAIR............................................................................................................150

11.4 NOTICE OF POSITIONS AVAILABLE ON THE TEAP AND ITS TOCS .........................................151

11.5 CONFLICT OF INTEREST .........................................................................................................151

ANNEX I: TEAP MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES ...................................................................................153

ANNEX II: TEAP-TOC MEMBERSHIP LISTS STATUS MARCH 2007 .......................................164

ANNEX III: TOC MEMBERS – DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST, STATUS MARCH 

2007 ......................................................................................................................................169

AIII.1 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS MTOC ..............................................................169

AIII.2 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS CTOC ...............................................................174

AIII.3 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS FTOC................................................................177

AIII.4 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS HTOC ...............................................................179

AIII.5 DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS RTOC ...............................................................186

AIII.6A DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS MBTOC - SOILS ...............................................193

AIII.6B DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS MBTOC - QSC.................................................197

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 1

1 Essential Uses 

1.1 Executive Summary 

The following table summarises the recommendations of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) on 

nominations for essential use production exemptions for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for 

metered dose inhalers (MDIs). 

Table ES-1: Recommendations for essential use nominations 

 European Community Russian Federation United States 

2008 Recommend exemption for 

CFCs for MDIs for 

316 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol to be sold 

within Member States of the 

EC). 

Recommend exemption for 

CFCs for MDIs for 

212 tonnes (for singlemoiety salbutamol to be 

sold within the Russian 

Federation). 

2009 Recommend exemption for 

CFCs for MDIs for 

282 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol).

The quantities requested by the European Community for 2008 are similar to those allocated 

in 2006 and 2007. It is not clear from the nomination how final phase-out of CFC use within 

the European Community will be achieved, nor how the European Community intends to 

reduce its production to zero. 

The Russian Federation states that it will not make a nomination for 2009. However, MTOC 

is uncertain that a complete phase-out will be feasible within the timeframe stated in the 

nomination. It is important that measures be considered to avoid jeopardizing patient health 

due to an overall shortfall in inhaled therapy. 

The United States’ nomination shows a decrease in requested quantities compared to 2008. 

The active moieties for which these quantities are requested will shortly be subject to a US 

FDA rule-making process that may be completed in 2008. The recommendation by MTOC is 

made under the assumption that all the active moieties remain essential under US FDA rules 

in 2009. In order to better inform the Parties’ essential use decision, the United States could 

clarify its stockpile status by the Meeting of Parties in 2007. Transfer of stocks between 

companies could more than offset the need for manufacture of CFCs. Companies producing 

MDIs other than single-moiety salbutamol may not have access to stockpiles held by other 

companies. 

While MTOC recommends approval of these nominations, Parties may wish to consider the 

following issues in making its essential use decisions. 

MTOC notes that the timelines for drug development and approval in non-Article 5 countries 

mean that any formulation that is going to be available by 1 January 2010 will already have to 

be a final commercial formulation in phase 3 regulatory studies in 2007 (assuming phase 3 

studies take 18-24 months and regulatory approval 12 months). This means that several of 

the drugs, which are included in CFC quantities requested in the current nominations, will not 

be reformulated within this timeline. This raises the question for the nominations for 2008 

and 2009, whether the quantities requested for certain active ingredients could be considered 

essential. Parties may wish to consider reducing the quantities approved for essential use 
2 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

contingent on receiving further information from nominating Parties confirming the absence 

of active research and development on these moieties. Parties may also wish to consider not 

allocating CFCs to companies without a final CFC-free formulation in phase 3 studies. 

For combination products for which the separate moieties are available as CFC-free 

alternatives, MTOC believes that these combination products continue to be used for patient 

convenience and commercial considerations. Patients will not come to any harm by using the 

drugs in separate inhalers. The combination inhalers cannot therefore be considered to be 

essential under Decision IV/25. Parties may wish to consider a decision not to allocate CFCs 

for these combination products. 

MTOC emphasises that the management of stockpiles will be extremely important to avoid 

unnecessary production of CFCs and the potential need for excessive destruction. MTOC 

believes that complete accounting frameworks of CFC stockpiles, including pre-1996 stocks, 

should be provided. Parties may wish to consider the advantages of requiring that plans for 

use or disposal of stockpiles be included in future nominations. 

1.2 Essential Use Nominations for Metered Dose Inhalers 

1.2.1 Criteria for Review of Essential Use Nominations for MDIs 

Decision IV/25 of the 4th Meeting and subsequent Decisions V/18, VII/28, VIII/9, VIII/10, 

XII/2, XIV/5, XV/5, XVI/12, XVII/5, and XVIII/7 have set the criteria and the process for the 

assessment of essential use nominations for metered dose inhalers (MDIs). 

1.2.2 Review of Nominations 

The review of essential use nominations by the Medical Technical Options Committee 

(MTOC) was conducted as follows. 

Three members of the MTOC independently reviewed each nomination, each preparing an 

assessment. Further information was requested where necessary. The MTOC considered the 

assessments, made recommendation decisions and prepared a consensus report. Where 

appropriate, members declared a potential conflict of interest ahead of the discussion. 

Nominations were assessed according to the guidelines for essential use contained within the 

Handbook on Essential Use Nominations (TEAP, 2005) and subsequent Decisions of the 

Parties. 

Concurrent with the evaluation undertaken by the MTOC, copies of all nominations are 

provided to the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP). The TEAP and its 

TOCs can consult with other individuals or organisations to assist in the review and to prepare 

TEAP recommendations for the Parties. 

1.2.3 Summary of Parties’ Essential Use Nominations and Quantities for 2008 and 2009 

(in tonnes) 

 European 

Community 

Russian 

Federation 

United States 

2008 316 212 - 

2009 - - 282 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 3

1.2.4 Observations 

Three essential use nominations were submitted for consideration in 2007: the European 

Community for 2008, the Russian Federation for 2008, and the United States for 2009. 

Accounting frameworks for 2006 were not received from the Japan and Ukraine, which had 

previously reported end of year stock for 2005 of 13.68 and 47.4 tonnes respectively. MTOC 

understands that Japan has destroyed its stock, but has no information about the Ukraine. 

Decision VIII/10 (1) states “That Parties not operating under Article 5 will request 

companies applying for MDI essential-use exemptions to demonstrate ongoing research and 

development of alternatives to CFC MDIs with all due diligence and/or collaborate with 

other companies in such efforts and, with each future request, to report in confidence to the 

nominating Party whether and to what extent resources are deployed to this end and progress 

is being made on such research and development, and what licence applications if any have 

been submitted to health authorities for non-CFC alternatives”. Decision XVIII/7 reiterated a 

similar request. 

The nominations for the European Community and the United States state that they have 

requested information on on-going research and development from individual companies, 

which remains confidential and is not provided for review by MTOC. While MTOC is 

confident nominating Parties received information regarding levels of research and 

development activity towards reformulation, MTOC believes that both nominations contain 

quantities for companies that could not be considered to be actively conducting research and 

development. For example, the European Community states “Companies targeting the export 

of generic type of CFC MDI to developing countries tend not to pursue very active research 

and development activities to develop alternative products. This is a remaining issue to be 

dealt with consistently with the phase-out of CFC MDI in Article 5 Parties.” 

MTOC notes that the timelines for drug development and approval in non-Article 5 countries 

mean that any formulation that is going to be available by 1 January 2010 will already have to 

be a final commercial formulation in phase 3 regulatory studies in 2007 (assuming phase 3 

studies take 18-24 months and regulatory approval 12 months). This means that several of 

the drugs, which are included in chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) quantities requested in the current 

nominations, will not be reformulated within this timeline. This raises the question for the 

nominations for 2008 and 2009, whether the quantities requested for certain active ingredients 

could be considered essential. Parties may wish to consider reducing the quantities approved 

for essential use contingent on receiving further information from nominating Parties 

confirming the absence of active research and development on these moieties. Parties may 

also wish to consider not allocating CFCs to companies without a final CFC-free formulation 

in phase 3 studies. 

For combination products for which the separate moieties are available as CFC-free 

alternatives, MTOC believes that these combination products continue to be used for patient 

convenience and commercial considerations. Patients will not come to any harm by using the 

drugs in separate inhalers. The combination inhalers cannot therefore be considered to be 

essential under Decision IV/25. Parties may wish to consider a decision not to allocate CFCs 

for these combination products. 

MTOC notes that both the European Community and the United States have now reported 

pre-1996 stockpiles. MTOC emphasises that the management of stockpiles at this final stage 

of the phase-out will be extremely important to avoid unnecessary production of CFCs and 
4 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

the potential need for excessive destruction. Parties may wish to remind CFC MDI 

manufacturers that any CFCs obtained under essential use exemptions must be used for this 

essential use (including through a transfer), transferred to an Article 5 country for basic 

domestic needs, or destroyed. In addition, Decision IV/25 (Report of the TEAP, May 2005, 

Progress Report, section 1.1.4.1, pg 35) requires companies that hold pre-1996 stocks to use 

them first before using newly produced CFCs. 

MTOC believes that complete accounting frameworks of CFC stockpiles, including pre-1996 

stocks, should be provided. Parties may wish to consider the advantages of requiring that 

plans for use or disposal of stockpiles be included in future nominations. 

1.2.5 Committee Evaluation and Recommendations 

Quantities are expressed in metric tonnes. 

1.2.5.1 European Community 

Year Quantity 

2008 316 tonnes 

Specific Use: MDIs for asthma and COPD 

Active ingredients and intended markets for which the European Community 

nomination applies 

Active Ingredients Intended market 

Salbutamol Central and South America 

Beclomethasone European Community, Asia-Pacific, Central and 

South America 

Budesonide Africa, Central and South America 

Cromoglicic acid European Community, United States, Central and 

South America 

Nedocromil United States 

Salbutamol+Ipratropium bromide 

(combination) 

European Community, New Zealand, Asia-Pacific, 

Middle-East, Mexico, Africa 

Salbutamol+Flunisolide 

(combination) 

European Community 

Salbutamol+Beclomethasone 

dipropionate (combination) 

European Community, Central and South America* 

Isoproterenol HCl+Fenilefrina HCl 

(combination) 

European Community 

*MTOC understands this combination product is also exported to the Middle East 

Recommendation: Exemption for CFCs for MDIs – 316 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol to be sold within Member States of the European 

Community). 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 5

Comments 

While MTOC accepts the European Community nomination and recommends its 

approval, there are several concerns noted by MTOC in addition to those 

discussed above. 

MTOC notes that within the European Community the transition had proceeded 

well in the past, but now seems to have stalled. The quantities requested by the 

European Community for 2008 are similar to those allocated in 2006 and 2007. It 

is not clear from the nomination how final phase-out of CFC use within the 

European Community will be achieved, nor how the European Community 

intends to reduce its production to zero. An explanation of the final phase-out 

plan for the European Community is needed, especially for amounts requested for 

export to Article 5 countries and for products for which a CFC-free alternative 

will not become available. 

MTOC notes that the requested quantities for use within the European 

Community appear to be primarily for combination products, the majority of 

which are separately available as single ingredient alternatives. MTOC also notes 

a significant proportion of the request is intended for export. While much of this 

export is to Article 5 countries, particularly for salbutamol for Central and South 

America (98 tonnes), it is not clear how this export will be handled into the 

future. Specifically, it would be helpful to understand better the details of these 

exports and the plans to assure availability of essential products as the transition 

is completed globally. 

The reported stockpiles are low and appear reasonable. While significant pre1996 stocks (~172 tonnes) have been recently reported, it is not clear these would 

be available to the companies still producing CFC MDIs. Transfer of stocks 

between companies could offset the need for manufacture of CFCs. 

1.2.5.2 Russian Federation 

Year Quantity 

2008 212 tonnes 

Specific Usage: MDIs for asthma and COPD, for active ingredient salbutamol for 

use solely within the Russian Federation 

Recommendation: Exemption for CFCs for MDIs – 212 tonnes (for single-moiety 

salbutamol to be sold within the Russian Federation) 

Comments 

The Russian Federation has made progress in reducing the annually nominated 

amounts for essential use, and states that it will not make a nomination for 2009. 

The current nomination for 2008 is for 212 tonnes; the exempted amounts for 

2006 and 2007 were 400 and 243 tonnes, respectively. The nominated CFCs are 

for use only for salbutamol MDI, and for use solely within the Russian 

Federation. Finished MDIs (CFC-containing and CFC-free) are also imported. 

The market share of these imported products was 50 per cent in 2006. There is 

no CFC production in the Russian Federation. CFC is imported from Korea, 
6 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

India and China and is purified in the Russian Federation before use in MDI 

manufacture. 

 

MTOC estimates that there may be a sufficient supply of CFCs from stockpile 

and exempted/nominated quantities to continue manufacture of salbutamol MDIs 

through to phase-out by 2009 assuming current levels of utilization. However, it 

is uncertain that a complete phase-out will be feasible within the timeframe stated 

in the nomination. Domestic alternatives are still in early stages of development. 

Furthermore, relying on the importation of CFC-free MDIs to avert a potential 

domestic shortfall may not be feasible due to the higher price of imported 

products. It is important that measures be considered to avoid jeopardizing 

patient health due to an overall shortfall in inhaled therapy. 

MTOC recommends that the Russian Federation establishes educational 

programs as it embarks on the final phase of the transition. 

1.2.5.3 United States 

Year Quantity 

2009 282 tonnes 

Specific Use: MDIs for asthma and COPD, for the following active ingredients 

for use solely within the United States: cromolyn, epinephrine, 

ipratropium/salbutamol (combination), nedocromil, pirbuterol, triamcinolone. 

Recommendation: Exemption for CFCs for MDIs – 282 tonnes (not for singlemoiety salbutamol). 

Comments 

The nomination was completed in accordance with the Handbook on Essential 

Use Nominations (TEAP, 2005). It shows a decrease in requested quantities 

compared to 2008. The active moieties for which these quantities are requested 

will shortly be subject to a US FDA rule-making process that may be completed 

in 2008. The recommendation by MTOC for the nominated 282 tonnes is made 

under the assumption that all the active moieties remain essential under US FDA 

rules in 2009. In the opinion of MTOC, comparable alternative therapies already 

exist in the United States market for all of these moieties. If it is determined by 

the US FDA that any of these moieties is no longer essential under United States’ 

law, depending on the timing of rulemaking, the CFC quantities for that moiety 

should be removed from the nomination, or not be allocated. The United States 

could provide in 2008 a revised nomination for 2009, based on the outcome of 

this rule-making. 

The aggregate stock reported in the accounting framework at end of year 2006 is 

2,466 tonnes. The proposed United States allocation of CFCs to MDI 

manufacturers for 2007 is about 1,000 tonnes less than its approved essential use 

quantity for this year, which means that the stockpile may be reduced accordingly 

by the end of 2007. While the remaining stock still appears to be in excess of the 

amount of CFCs needed for MDI manufacture (1,283 tonnes in 2006), MTOC 

does not know how much of this will be readily available to companies that are 

expecting to manufacture CFC MDIs in 2009, nor how the mix of different CFCs 

in stock matches the mix needed in 2009. Companies producing MDIs other than 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 7

single-moiety salbutamol may not have access to stockpiles held by other 

companies. The size of the stockpile will also be affected by the speed of phaseout of salbutamol CFC MDIs over the course of 2007 and 2008. Approval of the 

2009 quantities assures availability of CFCs for MDIs other than single-moiety 

salbutamol if the CFC stockpile proves to be inaccessible due to business 

considerations. At the end of phase-out, the United States could hold a 

substantial stockpile of CFC, which may require destruction. 

In order to better inform the Parties’ essential use decision, the United States 

could clarify its stockpile status by the Meeting of Parties in 2007. Transfer of 

stocks between companies could more than offset the need for manufacture of 

CFCs. 

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 9

2 Decision XVIII/16: Difficulties faced by some Article 5 Parties 

manufacturing metered-dose inhalers which use 

chlorofluorocarbons 

2.1 Background to Decision XVIII/16 

At the Seventeenth Meeting, the Parties to the Montreal Protocol discussed the difficulties 

faced by some Article 5 Parties with respect to the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) 

used in the manufacture of metered dose inhalers (MDIs). In Decision XVII/14 the Parties 

expressed their concern that Article 5 Parties that manufacture CFC MDIs might find it 

difficult to phase out these substances without incurring economic losses to their countries. 

There was the further risk that, for some Article 5 Parties, consumption levels in 2007 of 

CFCs for MDIs might exceed the amounts allowed for all CFC uses under the Protocol. 

The Parties considered the issue again at their Eighteenth Meeting and took Decision 

XVIII/16. Paragraph 12 of this Decision requests: 

“...TEAP to assess and report on progress at the twenty-seventh meeting o f the Openended Working Group and to report to the NineteenthMeeting of the Parties on the 

need for, feasibility of, optimal timing of, and recommended quantities for a limited 

campaign production of chlorofluorocarbons exclusively for metered-dose inhalers in 

both Parties operating under paragraph 1 of Article 5 and Parties not operating under 

paragraph 1 of Article 5.” 

In responding to the Parties’ request under Decision XVIII/16, the Medical Technical Options 

Committee (MTOC) considered information from an Executive Committee report, Options 

for Addressing the Situation of Countries Referred to in Decision XVII/14 of the 17th Meeting 

of the Parties (Follow-up to Decision 49/33)1

. This included data from a questionnaire 

distributed to 138 Article 5 Parties, national phase-out plans under current implementation, 

and reports submitted by Article 5 Parties to the Ozone Secretariat pursuant to Decision 

XIV/5. MTOC also considered other sources of information on the MDI sub-sector in Article 

5 Parties, including the May 2006 Progress Report of the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel, and industry sources. 

2.2 Progress in transition in Article 5 Parties 

It is clear from the experience in non-Article 5 countries that a successful transition strategy 

must have a clear, final date by which time the country expects no longer to need CFC MDIs 

for its patients with asthma and COPD. The details of a strategy required for a country to 

successfully meet that date, while protecting patient’s health, vary by the circumstances of the 

country, its health system and whether it imports or locally produces CFC MDIs. Elements 

that must be considered include the following: 

• Date for completion; 

• Measures to assure the timely introduction of CFC-free alternatives into the 

market through technology development/transfer (for producers) and 

regulatory approval (for both producers and importers); 

 

1

 UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf 
10 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

• Phase-out plan for CFC MDIs when acceptable alternatives are available; 

• Promotion of discussions between environmental and health authorities, and 

efforts to inform practitioners and patients about the transition. 

Many countries have not yet submitted transition strategies. MTOC recommends that any 

country producing or importing CFC MDIs consider developing a transition strategy as a 

matter of urgency, taking into account the above considerations. Their timely development 

will help assure patient access to adequate inhaled therapies as the final phase-out date 

approaches. In particular, it is critical that all CFC MDI producing countries now implement 

a transition strategy. 

The following section outlines information on the current status of transition in some 

countries that manufacture MDIs. Unfortunately, this does not represent a complete picture, 

with information missing for some countries with domestic production of CFC MDIs, such as 

Algeria and South Africa. Most of the data are derived from the Executive Committee 

report2

. 

2.2.1 Argentina 

CFC consumption for the production of MDIs in Argentina increased from 86 tonnes to 188 

tonnes between 2003 and 2005. The Government of Argentina has indicated that the 

maximum allowable level of CFCs for all uses for each year from 2007 to 2009 is 704.6 ODP 

tonnes for consumption and 686.0 ODP tonnes for production. As the total CFC production 

will be entirely for domestic consumption, Argentina could import a maximum of only 18.6 

ODP tonnes of CFCs each year for use in the MDI sector, which is much lower than the 188 

ODP tonnes used for MDI production in 2005. Given those circumstances, Argentina may 

not be able to meet the demand for pharmaceutical-grade CFCs. However, Argentina has also 

reported that hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) MDIs have been produced there since 2005. 

2.2.2 Bangladesh 

There are 4 companies manufacturing CFC MDIs in Bangladesh (one a multi-national 

company with 18 per cent local ownership); all production lines were established after July 

1995. CFC consumption for the production of MDIs has increased from 39 to 62 tonnes 

between 2003 and 2005, and to an estimated 76 tonnes in 2006. During 2006, one company 

announced the introduction of the country’s first HFC salbutamol and beclomethasone MDIs, 

but that it will not cease its current production of CFC salbutamol and beclomethasone MDIs. 

2.2.3 Brazil 

Brazil has identified two national MDI manufacturing plants, as well as two multi-national 

companies manufacturing CFC MDIs, that used 134.5 ODP tonnes of CFCs in 2006 for the 

production of CFC MDIs for local use and for export to other Parties. 

The locally owned manufacturers of MDIs were recently estimated to consume about 

10 ODP tonnes of CFCs. 

 

2

 UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 11

2.2.4 China 

Approximately 15 million CFC MDIs are locally manufactured in China, multi-national 

companies sell about 2.5 million MDIs each year, and a small quantity of HFC MDIs has 

been imported since 2004. 

Some locally owned companies have developed and patented new technology for CFC-free 

MDIs (clinical trials are ongoing). Adequate bulk pharmaceutical-grade HFC is readily 

available from three multi-national producers and will likely be available from one local 

producer. China is committed to cease CFC manufacture for MDIs by the end of 2009. 

2.2.5 Colombia 

Colombia has reported that all CFC MDIs were imported into the country and that no CFC 

MDIs were manufactured in Colombia. The Government of Colombia and the health 

authorities were concerned about the MDI sub-sector and requested funding for the 

development of an MDI transition strategy that would establish a clear schedule for import 

substitution of CFC MDIs. However, one local company has recently been reported to be 

producing CFC MDIs in Colombia since 2003, although CFC quantities are small, estimated 

at 2 tonnes annually. 

2.2.6 Croatia 

One local company (Pliva Hrvatska) has been producing CFC MDIs in Croatia since 1975. 

By the end of 2004, the company had ceased production of CFC MDIs, and started 

manufacturing salbutamol HFC MDIs (128,190 units). By 2005, about 378,700 HFC MDI 

units were produced. This Croatian company has successfully effected a complete transition 

to CFC-free MDIs without external financial support. 

2.2.7 India 

There are 19 different MDIs currently produced in India by 7 manufacturing enterprises (less 

than 2 per cent of total production is by multi-national companies). The total CFC 

consumption for the production of MDIs increased from 635.5 tonnes to 748.3 tonnes 

between 2003 and 2005. India has a substantial number of affordable dry powder inhaler 

(DPI) alternatives and one company has had under-used HFC MDI production capacity for 

several years. MTOC understands that India should be able to phase out CFCs from MDIs by 

the end of 2009. 

2.2.8 Indonesia 

Indonesia indicated that some 30 ODP tonnes were used for the production of MDIs and other 

aerosol pharmaceutical products by several local (Daya Varia and Konimex) and multinational companies (AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline) (it would appear 

that a large portion of the 30 ODP tonnes of CFCs reported in the phase-out plan is used for 

the manufacturing of pharmaceutical aerosols). 

2.2.9 Iran 

One locally owned company (Sina-Darou) has produced CFC MDIs in Iran since April 1993. 

Iran previously reported that some 50 tonnes of CFCs were used for manufacturing MDIs. 

MTOC understands that approximately 90 tonnes of CFC was used to make MDIs in 2006. 
12 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

2.2.10 Mexico 

According to a recent report, CFC MDIs have been produced in Mexico since 1999 by a 

locally owned company and by a multi-national company that requested imports of some 20 

tonnes of CFC-114 for 2007. The national phase-out plan stated “the Government of Mexico 

will manage to phase out the MDI usage of CFCs without any assistance from the Multilateral 

Fund”. 

2.2.11 Pakistan 

There are two MDI manufacturing companies in Pakistan. One is a joint venture between a 

multi-national company and a local company (with 21 per cent ownership), which started 

production of MDIs in 1983; the other company started production of CFC MDIs in 2005. 

The number of MDIs imported into the country increased from about 450,000 units in 2003 to 

about 1,000,000 units in 2005. Of the total MDIs imported in 2005, about 500,000 units were 

imported for the first time, from one MDI manufacturing company in China. 

2.3 Difficulties in the transition in Article 5 countries 

In most developing countries there is limited inhaler use compared to developed countries, as 

a result of many factors, some of which are cost, prescribing practices, and patient and 

physician awareness. Further, transition to CFC-free MDIs has not been a high priority 

among many healthcare providers, who are generally the main point of contact with patients. 

Educational efforts and marketing by pharmaceutical companies have, for the most part, been 

the driving force in the uptake of CFC-free alternatives. 

Based on the experience in non-Article 5 countries, Article 5 countries that do not have an 

MDI manufacturing plant, or where MDIs are locally manufactured but predominantly by 

multi-national companies, national transition approaches may not have a large impact in the 

absence of support for transition to CFC-free alternatives from the multi-national MDI 

manufacturers or importers 

All countries need a national CFC MDI transition plan involving all stakeholders, 

Government regulatory authorities, medical societies, and industry. As pharmaceutical-grade 

CFCs become less available, multi-national companies will need to rapidly introduce already 

developed CFC-free alternatives in Article 5 Parties. Prompt government regulatory support 

actions to approve new alternative products are important to assure seamless availability of 

inhaled therapy. Such transition strategies should ensure adequate supplies of inhaled therapy 

throughout the transition period, including adequate supplies of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs 

to complete the transition as well as CFC-free alternatives. 

For Article 5 countries with current local CFC MDIs manufacture, there are three choices for 

transition to CFC-free alternatives: 

Option 1 – Complete redevelopment and conversion of plant; 

Option 2 – Use of a third party to deliver a turnkey operation (as in Cuba); 

Option 3 – Cease local production and rely on importing CFC-free alternatives 

(HFC MDIs and DPIs) 

Transition will require an individualised solution. Some companies in Article 5 countries 

have the technical knowledge for transition without the need for external technology transfer, 

or financial support. Only a few countries that do not have access to modern 

aerosol/pharmaceutical technologies will need advice and support. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 13

2.3.1 Technology transfer and product development 

While technology transfer would often appear most expedient to effect transition, as opposed 

to a wholly independent effort, there may be some challenges to the transfer of technology for 

some Article 5 countries. Some of these challenges are discussed below: 

2.3.1.1 Finance 

Some companies may have significant barriers to financing the development and 

implementation of new inhaler manufacturing capacity. A delay in seeking such 

funding, where needed, can introduce significant delays into the development 

whilst such funding is sought, obtained and negotiated. 

2.3.1.2 Knowledge 

Innovator pharmaceutical companies may be reluctant to transfer knowledge 

around formulations or processes to local companies since this may lead to direct 

competition for their markets in the region. While there are generic companies 

prepared to offer a turnkey solution, this can prove very expensive and timeconsuming. Nevertheless, this is a faster option than a local company starting 

now to develop this knowledge autonomously. 

2.3.1.3 Equipment 

In most Article 5 countries producing MDIs, orders are yet to be placed for the 

manufacturing equipment likely to be needed to produce HFC MDIs. This 

equipment may take significant time to obtain, and will impact on the ability of 

these countries to effect transition by 2010. There may also be lead times 

associated with the sourcing of valves and canisters suitable for new HFC 

formulations. In this context, single-dose dry powder inhalers may be an 

excellent alternative in Article 5 countries. The technology needed for 

production is simple and cheap, allowing the set up of manufacturing units even 

in the smaller and traditionally non-producing countries. 

2.3.1.4 Regulatory approvals 

Not all countries have yet developed guidelines on the content of the regulatory 

submission for an HFC MDI or for a DPI product approval. In particular, the 

regulatory authorities in several Article 5 countries have not yet set a standard 

specification for pharmaceutical-grade HFC propellant and, therefore no standard 

samples exist. It would be useful if these authorities could also consider an 

expedited approval process; an example of such a process exists in Japan where 

products were approved within 3 months. At present, this is causing delay to the 

development and approval of substitute products. 

2.3.1.5 Price 

There has been concern about the potential price of CFC-free alternative MDIs. 

However, as transition has occurred and HFC MDI component prices have fallen, 

competition has kept prices comparable to those of CFC MDIs. If there is a 

disincentive to treatment due to price, governments could consider actions to 

lower the cost to the patients. An affordable supply of CFC-free MDIs may also 
14 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

be available from the Asthma Drug Facility of the International Union Against 

Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (IUATLD) 

(http://www.iuatld.org/index_en.phtml). 

2.3.1.6 Patient acceptance 

This has not been an impediment to transition. Transition has been relatively 

seamless because replacement MDIs are very similar to the CFC product. 

Nevertheless, patient and professional organisations need to respond to individual 

patient questions that may arise. 

2.3.2 Case Studies in Transition 

The following three examples show the varied experiences of Article countries in transition 

converting CFC MDI manufacture to CFC-free alternatives. 

2.3.2.1 Cuba 

Cuba received a turnkey solution (as in Option 2 above). After a difficult process 

to procure technology, Cuba has now manufactured pilot batches with the 

assistance of a product development company, who are also assisting in 

registration and manufacturing installation 

2.3.2.2 Uruguay 

In Uruguay, the local manufacturer had a laboratory with experienced staff, so 

they were able to develop the CFC-free alternative products without the need for 

a technology provider. Funding from the MLF covered the other costs of 

conversion. Other enterprises and distributors of MDIs have entered into 

voluntary agreements with the Government on “a plan for transition to CFC-free 

MDIs”, which must be in accordance with the national MDI transition strategy. 

HFC MDIs should be available from this manufacturer in 2007. 

2.3.2.3 Croatia and Tunisia 

MTOC understands that local manufacturers in Croatia and Tunisia have 

transitioned to CFC-free MDI manufacture without any external financial support 

for technology transfer. 

2.4 CFC requirements to supply MDIs in 2010 and beyond 

Table 2.1 summarizes MTOC’s analysis of CFC consumption for MDI manufacture in Article 

5 countries. 

For Article 5 countries, MTOC estimated CFC needs for those countries with local production 

of CFC MDIs. Calculations were based on information prepared by the MLF for the 51st

meeting of the Executive Committee UNEP/OZl.Pro/ExCom/51/393

, Table 1. MTOC made 

additional assumptions regarding modest increases in annual consumption in line with general 

economic growth, along with estimated timing of full transition to local production of HFC 

 

3

 UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 15

MDI alternatives. This was based on information available regarding potential projects and 

existing availability of locally produced HFC MDIs. Some of the data have been adjusted 

based on the local information available to MTOC: for example, the inclusion of Syria and 

new data for the Islamic Republic of Iran. MTOC is aware of local CFC MDI manufacturing 

in certain other Article 5 countries, for example South Africa and Algeria, but has insufficient 

information to include them in this analysis. Other countries, like Croatia and Tunisia, have 

already successfully converted domestic production of CFC MDIs to CFC-free alternatives. 

The information in the table only presents CFC use for MDIs up to and including 2010. 

However, given the current status of transition and technology development a few countries 

may require continuing production of CFC MDIs beyond 2010, which MTOC estimates 

should not exceed about 300 tonnes. Estimates in Table 2.1 show continued growth until the 

phase-out date for each country. Although this is an unlikely scenario for countries 

implementing transition, it was chosen to provide an upper estimate of CFC requirements. 

Table 2.1 Estimated CFC requirements for Article 5 countries with local CFC MDI 

production* 

*For 2006-2010 estimates do not include consumption by multi-national companies 

Although for 2005 the table shows about 400 tonnes of CFCs used by multinationals 

operating in Article 5 countries, it has been assumed that this use will decrease to zero in 

2009. It should be noted, however, that the total quantities given for the years 2006 – 2010 do 

not include these quantities. MTOC believes that in some cases, the data in the column for 

total CFC consumption for MDIs in 2005 may be over-estimated due to uncertainties about 

whether they include quantities for imports or local production by multinational companies. 

There may be a need for continued production of CFC MDIs beyond 2009 to supply the needs 

of Article 5 country patients for a limited period. This supply of MDIs to Article 5 countries 

from either local manufacture or imported products would require a supply of pharmaceuticalgrade CFCs. This would need to be produced under a mechanism under the Montreal 

Protocol. 

Based on this analysis, Parties may wish to consider whether the CFCs needed in 2010, and 

for any year beyond that, should be supplied either by: 

• Continued annual production of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs; or 

• A final campaign production in 2009.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Total Nationally-owned Nationally - owned Projected Consumption

Countries with an approved project for the complete phase-out of CFCs for MDIs 

Cuba 109.00 109.00 114.45 120.17 126.18 

Egypt 159.50 159.50 163.00 171.15 179.71 188.69 198.13 

Uruguay 10.00 10.00 10.50 11.03 11.58 

Subtotal 278.50 278.50 287.95 302.35 317.46 188.69 198.13 

Countries without an approved project for the complete phase-out of CFCs for MDIs 

Argentina 187.70 130.90 143.99 158.39 174.23 191.65 210.82 

Bangladesh 61.80 51.40 76.00 83.60 91.96 101.16 111.27 

Brazil 156.90 10.00 11.00 12.10 13.31 14.64 

China 418.50 369.00 405.90 446.49 491.14 540.25 

Colombia 2.10 2.10 2.31 2.54 2.80 3.07 

India 748.30 703.40 773.74 851.11 936.23 1,029.85 

Indonesia 30.10 30.10 33.11 36.42 40.06 44.07 48.48 

Iran 68.20 68.20 96.40 106.04 116.64 128.31 141.14 

Mexico 47.50 47.50 52.25 57.48 63.22 69.54 76.50 

Pakistan 85.80 1.96 2.16 2.37 2.61 2.87 

Syria 20.00 20.00 22.00 24.20 26.62 29.28 32.21 

Subtotal 1,434.56 1,826.90 1,618.86 1,780.74 1,958.82 2,154.70 588.20 

Total 2,105.40 1,713.06 1,906.81 2,083.09 2,276.28 2,343.39 786.33 

CFC consumption for MDI (2005)

Country
16 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

2.4.1 Technical Option Appraisal – Annual Production of CFCs in 2010 and beyond 

Bulk pharmaceutical-grade CFCs could theoretically be produced after 2009 by a number of 

current CFC producers in both non-Article 5 and Article 5 countries (Spain, the United States, 

India, China, Republic of Korea) through operating specific campaigns. However, a number 

of constraints limit the feasibility of this option. 

• There is a certain minimum production quantity (estimated by one company 

as 200 tonnes) for a single CFC (CFC 11, 12 or 114) necessary for the 

efficient manufacture of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs. Given the projected 

quantities, it is likely that several small orders would need to be aggregated to 

meet this minimum production level. This would give rise to uncertainty as 

to the timing of any production and therefore also availability. 

• Orders made by CFC MDI manufacturers for CFCs can only be placed with 

those suppliers for which regulatory approval has been obtained for a specific 

drug formulation. As CFC producers stop production through rationalisation, 

regulatory approval for a new supplier could take so long as to be impractical. 

This could further constrain the ability of the CFC producer to aggregate 

orders. 

• Producers have indicated that firm orders for pharmaceutical-grade CFCs 

would need to be placed at least 3 months in advance to allow planning of 

any campaign to a certain timeline. CFC producing companies would require 

up-front, legally binding orders for production. This process needs to take 

into account commercial issues such as anti-competitive practices. The 

liability for future destruction of unsold CFCs would remain with the CFC 

MDI manufacturing company. The requirements of the Basel Convention on 

the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their 

Disposal would need to be considered. 

• Even where quantities exceed 200 tonnes, the production of pharmaceuticalgrade CFCs would generate 25-50 per cent of non-pharmaceutical-grade 

CFCs as a by-product. After 2009, these non-pharmaceutical-grade CFCs 

would have to be destroyed since there would be no basic domestic use in the 

subsequent years. Destruction costs of $3 - $5/kg would need to be built into 

the cost of production of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs, leading to an increase 

in price and making them comparable to HFCs. It is also important to note 

that the smaller the production run the higher the proportion of nonpharmaceutical-grade CFCs that would need to be destroyed and the higher 

the price of the final product. 

• Due to current laws and regulations, companies within the European 

Community and the United States cannot produce CFCs after 31 December 

2009 unless the CFCs are designated as production for “essential use.” 

Therefore if CFC production is required beyond 2009 for the manufacture of 

MDIs in Article 5 countries, and in the absence of regulatory change, 

production by CFC producers in the United States or the European 

Community would need to be designated by the Parties as being for essential 

uses. 

If annual CFC production to manufacture MDIs in Article 5 countries is considered, a 

mechanism very similar to that used currently for the essential use nominations by non-
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 17

Article 5 countries would be required. This mechanism would need to be put into effect by 

the Parties in 2007 to allow for the evaluation of nominations in 2008 so that production 

under this process could begin in or before 2010. 

MTOC notes that this option would allow CFC manufacture to take place beyond the final 

CFC phase-out date for Article 5 Parties of 31 December 2009. MTOC believes that if an 

annual production process is developed, Parties may wish to set a future date beyond which 

any such annual production is no longer allowed. This date could be chosen to allow the 

Article 5 countries to complete transition but would make clear the firm outer limits of all 

CFC production under the Montreal Protocol. In the final period of any annual process, as 

quantities decrease, a final campaign will still be necessary in order to avoid an abrupt 

cessation of adequate product availability. 

2.4.2 Technical Option Appraisal – Final Campaign Production of CFCs in 2009 for use 

in 2010 and beyond 

A second option would be to allow the production of sufficient CFCs in 2009 to cover the 

manufacture of CFC MDIs needed to complete the transition in Article 5 countries. While 

some CFC MDIs may need to be manufactured in Article 5 countries in 2010 and beyond, 

MTOC believes that CFCs for these MDIs can all be manufactured before the end of 2009. 

These CFCs could be manufactured in a final campaign production together with CFCs that 

are required for use in 2009. 

MTOC has provided an estimate of CFC needs for 2009 and 2010 in Table 3.1. CFC 

requirements for years beyond 2010 are currently difficult to estimate due to uncertainties in 

the rate of transition but are likely to be small. MTOC estimates that the total quantities 

required in such a campaign are modest (possibly 4,000 tonnes for Article 5 and non-Article 5 

countries) and would not exceed current CFC production capacity. However, in order to 

assure patient health, and to avoid excess production of CFCs (that would later need to be 

destroyed), these estimates would need to be more precisely defined during 2008, to allow a 

final campaign production in 2009. 

It also would be necessary for the orders to be received by the CFC manufacturers sufficiently 

in advance to allow them to take these quantities into account for their 2009 production 

schedules. CFC manufacturers would need firm orders early in 2009. 

From a CFC manufacturing point of view, it would be considerably easier to produce CFCs 

during a final campaign in 2009 rather than manufacturing CFCs annually for "essential 

uses". A final CFC campaign could be an extension of a normal CFC production run; this 

would minimise the production of non-pharmaceutical-grade CFCs (which in 2009 and 

thereafter could not be used for basic domestic needs and therefore would require 

destruction). 

The major concern for a final campaign would be ensuring that adequate high-quality storage 

facilities were available, together with careful consideration of location, management and 

distribution. MDI manufacturers would also need to pay upfront for the pharmaceutical-grade 

CFCs. 

Any campaign post-2010 to produce pharmaceutical-grade CFCs would have a number of 

disadvantages. In particular, smaller production runs would result in relatively larger 

quantities of non-pharmaceutical-grade CFCs post-2010 that would require destruction and 

add to costs. Another disadvantage would be the timing of such a production run. It would 

be necessary for a CFC producer to collect sufficient orders for pharmaceutical-grade CFCs to 
18 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

make a production run viable, with the result that it would be difficult to guarantee a date for 

production. Alternatively, a producer could announce a date for production, but then the 

minimum quantity required to initiate a production run may still not be achieved by the 

announced date. Either way, potential supply and delivery problems to the MDI 

manufacturers could result. 

MDI manufacturers in Article 5 countries would also need to consider liability issues for 

destruction of any remaining unused CFCs, including consideration of the Basel Convention 

on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal. 

A final campaign in 2009 would require Article 5 Parties to have developed and implemented 

CFC MDI phase-out strategies that define the quantities of CFCs required. It would also be 

necessary to consider the specific situation of each country requiring CFCs to manufacture 

MDIs. For instance, in a final campaign some countries may have overall requirements for 

CFCs for MDI manufacture that in 2009 would place them in potential non-compliance with 

the phase-out schedule for Article 5 countries under the Montreal Protocol. 

2.4.3 Information needed to define quantities for a final campaign production of 

pharmaceutical-grade CFCs in 2009 

Any Party (Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries) that might require CFCs for MDI 

manufacture for use in an Article 5 country for 2010 and beyond would need to provide 

specific information in early 2008, in order for Parties to make a decision at their meeting in 

late 2008 and authorise production in 2009. For non-Article 5 Parties, the existing essential 

use process could be used to consider quantities for a final campaign. However for Article 5 

Parties a process is needed to assess and grant quantities of CFCs for a final campaign 

production. 

In order to calculate the quantities to be produced in a final campaign, the following 

information will need to be taken into account on a country-by-country basis: 

• Country transition strategy for CFC MDIs, including a phase-out date for 

CFC MDI production 

• Quantity required for each year (2009 and beyond), and historical 3 year 

consumption data 

• Within the Party, a summary of conversion projects for CFC MDI 

manufacturing plants, including: timelines; availability of manufacturing 

equipment, delivery and commissioning dates; 

• Availability of CFC-free alternatives from local manufacture and from 

import, status of CFC-free MDI development and approval, timing of 

introduction, relative pricing of imports compared with locally manufactured 

products and whether this presents a barrier to transition 

• Information on storage capacity, facilities and capabilities, access to 

destruction facilities and consideration of Basel Convention requirements 

• The date CFC MDI production commenced (to avoid start-up in 2009) 

• Access to stockpile 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 19

An annual accounting process may also be needed to track the quantities of CFCs: produced 

for MDI manufacture; used in MDI manufacture; within exported finished product; 

stockpiled; and destroyed. 

The Technology Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) and its MTOC can assist Parties at 

their request in their assessment of this information in 2008. 

There may be other mechanisms to source an affordable supply of CFC-free MDIs, for 

example the Asthma Drug Facility of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung 

Disease (IUATLD) (http://www.iuatld.org/index_en.phtml). Article 5 countries may also 

wish to consider stopping the import of CFC MDIs after a certain date. 

2.4.4 Conclusions 

MTOC believes that there should be no need for new manufacture of CFCs for MDIs beyond 

2009 for non-Article 5 countries for use within those countries. 

CFC MDI production for Article 5 countries may need to continue for some limited period 

beyond 2010. However, MTOC believes that it will be possible to complete a global phaseout of the manufacture of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs (for MDI manufacture) by the end of 

2009. This may require a final campaign in 2009 of up to 4,000 tonnes of CFCs for MDIs to 

include requirements for 2009, and requirements for all CFC MDI production for 2010 and 

beyond for Article 5 and non-Article 5 countries. 

On the current assessment, India is likely to be the single largest global user of CFCs for 

MDIs in 2008. A final campaign quantity of 4,000 tonnes assumes a complete phase-out of 

CFC MDI manufacture in India by the end of 2009. If, for example, India were to transition 

sooner, the final campaign could be substantially smaller. Another variable is the potential 

transfer of stocks from non-Article 5 countries to Article 5 countries as the former complete 

phase-out around 2009. If significant stockpile were available and transferred from nonArticle 5, the final campaign would also be smaller. 

MTOC has serious concerns about the security of supply of diminishing quantities of 

pharmaceutical-grade CFCs if the option of annual production of CFCs for 2009, 2010 and 

beyond was chosen. 

MTOC believes that a final campaign production in 2009 is technically feasible without harm 

to patient health. The success of final campaign production is contingent on: 

• India and China completing the transition for which they will have adequate 

alternatives and industrial capacity; 

• The remaining few countries phase out CFC MDI manufacture; 

• A Decision being taken in 2007 to undertake final campaign, with CFC 

quantities accurately defined in 2008 based on information submitted by 

Parties. This process would allow CFC production orders to be placed in 

early 2009. 

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 21

3 Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) Progress 

Report 

3.1 Transition to alternatives to CFC MDIs 

The Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) provided an extensive review of the use 

of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) metered dose inhalers (MDIs) and alternatives for inhalation 

therapy in its Assessment Report 2006 (see 

http://ozone.unep.org/teap/Reports/MTOC/MTOC_Assessment_Report_2006.pdf). 

3.2 Global Use of CFCs for MDIs 

The global use of CFCs to manufacture MDIs in 2006 is estimated to be over 4,000 tonnes, of 

which about 50 per cent is used in Article 5 Parties. 

Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 show the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for the manufacture of 

metered dose inhalers (MDIs) for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 

in non-Article 5 countries. 

In 2006, 2,107 tonnes of CFCs were used by non-Article 5 countries in MDI manufacture 

under essential use exemptions, as reported through accounting frameworks. This represents 

a 23 per cent reduction in use compared to 2005, and a 76 per cent reduction in use compared 

with the year of maximum use in 1997 (8,905 tonnes). The nominated/exempted amount for 

2008 is 913 tonnes of CFCs. Approximately 200 tonnes of the nominated essential use 

quantities for 2008 are for export from the European Community to Article 5 Parties. 

Figure 3.1 Quantities of CFCs for MDI manufacture in non-Article 5(1) countries 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Year

Nominated or exempted Used Stock
22 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Table 3.1 Quantities (in tonnes) of CFCs for MDI manufacture in non-Article 5 countries 

Year of 

Essential Use 

Amount Exempted/ 

Nominated for year 

of Essential Use 

Used for Essential 

Use 

On Hand End of 

Year 

1996 12,987.20 8,241.13 7,129.59 

1997 13,548.00 8,904.99 8,515.24 

1998 11,720.18 8,013.60 7,656.63 

1999 9,442.13 7,906.35 5,653.95 

2000 8,364.95 6,062.75 5,433.32 

2001 6,126.53 6,121.62 4,402.59 

2002 6,714.75 4,751.92 4,133.71 

2003 6,641.55 4,261.91 3,570.27 

2004 5,443.12 2,840.82 2,460.10 

2005 3,321.10 2,735.40 3,671.01 * 

2006 2,039.00 2,107.10** 2,957.37 * 

2007 1,778.00 - - 

2008 913.00 - - 

2009 282.00 - - 

*Includes newly reported pre-1996 stock 

**Includes material approved in 2005 but used in 2006 in the Russian Federation 

Technically satisfactory alternatives to CFC MDIs are available for short-acting beta-agonists 

and a wide array of other therapeutic categories for asthma and COPD. The availability of 

CFC stocks coupled with these alternatives assures patient safety during the transition. 

The management of stockpiles at this final stage of the phase-out will be extremely important 

to avoid unnecessary production of CFCs and the need for large quantities to be destroyed 

after the phase-out date. To ensure transparency, any pre-1996 stocks should be accounted 

for in the Reporting Accounting Framework for Essential Uses. In addition, Decision IV/25 

(Report of the TEAP, May 2005, Progress Report, section 1.1.4.1, pg 35) requires companies 

that hold pre-1996 stocks to use them first before using newly produced CFCs. 

Table 3.2 shows the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) for the manufacture of MDIs for 

asthma and COPD in many Article 5 countries. Unfortunately, this does not represent a 

complete picture, with information missing for some countries with known domestic 

production of CFC MDIs, such as Algeria and South Africa. 

In 2005, Article 5 countries used about 2,100 tonnes of CFCs for MDI manufacture in those 

countries for which data are available. About 81 per cent of this was by locally owned 

companies manufacturing CFC MDIs; multi-nationals operating in Article 5 countries 

account for the remaining 19 per cent of CFC use for MDIs. With increasing use of CFCs for 

MDIs in Article 5 countries, it is likely that CFC use for the manufacture of MDIs in Article 5 

countries will exceed that in non-Article 5 countries in 2007. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 23

Table 3.2 Quantities (in tonnes) of CFCs for MDI manufacture in Article 5 countries* 

*Data taken from sources including UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, 

http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf

3.3 Transition strategies 

Transition strategies from 6 Parties are listed on the Ozone Secretariat’s web site. Pursuant to 

Decision XV/5(4), plans of action regarding the phase-out of the domestic use of CFCcontaining MDIs from the European Community, the Russian Federation and the United 

States are also listed on the Ozone Secretariat’s web site. 

According to Executive Committee Decision 45/54, Low Volume Countries (LVCs) 

submitting Terminal Phase-Out Management Plans (TPMPs) can obtain up to US$30,000 for 

MDI transition strategies upon provision of basic data demonstrating the need for such a 

strategy. However, there is the additional issue of whether funding can be extended to 

countries that have either submitted their TPMPs before the 45th Meeting of the Executive 

Committee or are not LVCs. Furthermore, according to the Executive Committee report, 

Options for Addressing the Situation of Countries Referred to in Decision XVII/14 of the 17th

Meeting of the Parties (Follow-up to Decision 49/33)4

, a number of Article 5 countries with 

major manufacture of CFC MDIs are still in the process of preparing transition strategies. 

3.3.1 Progress reports on transition strategies 

Under Decision XII/2, Parties are required to report to the Secretariat by 31 January each year 

on progress made in transition to CFC-free MDIs. In 2007, a report was received from the 

People’s Republic of China on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). 

In 2002, the Government of the HKSAR submitted its strategy to facilitate transition to CFCfree MDIs. All MDIs in the HKSAR are imported products. Major registered substitutes 

available on the market include dry powder inhalers (DPIs) and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 

MDIs. In 2005, the percentages of consumption of CFC-free MDIs, CFC MDIs and DPIs 

were 81, 16 and 3 per cent respectively. 

 

4

 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf) 

Total Nationally-owned

Argentina 187.70 130.90

Bangladesh 61.80 51.40

Brazil 156.90 10.00

China 418.50 369.00

Colombia 2.10 2.10

Cuba 109.00 109.00

Egypt 159.50 159.50

India 748.30 703.40

Indonesia 30.10 30.10

Iran 68.20 68.20

Mexico 47.50 47.50

Pakistan 85.80 1.96

Syria 20.00 20.00

Uruguay 10.00 10.00

Total 2095.40 1703.06

Country

CFC consumption for MDIs (2005)
24 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

3.4 Global database 

Under Decision XIV/5, Parties are requested to submit information on CFC and CFC-free 

alternatives to the Secretariat by 28 February each year. In 2007, reports were only received 

from Australia, Bulgaria, European Community, and Uruguay. Twenty-two Article 5 Parties 

have submitted data pursuant to Decision XIV/5 since its inception. These are Argentina, 

Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, China, Croatia, Cuba, Eritrea, Georgia, Guyana, 

India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mauritius, Moldova, Namibia, Oman, 

Romania, Sri Lanka, and Uruguay 5

. 

 

5

 (UNEP/OzL.Pro/ExCom/51/39, http://www.multilateralfund.org/files/51/5139.pdf) 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 25

4 Chemicals Technical Options Committee (CTOC) Progress 

Report 

4.1 Executive Summary 

4.1.1 Process Agents (XVII/6, 7 and 8) 

The CTOC examined the process agents listed in table A of decision XVII/7 and recommends 

that the thirty nine process agents can be grouped in ways that will be helpful for the Parties in 

their decision-making. 

In the first group the CTOC places eighteen process agents which meet the technical criteria set 

out in Decision X/14 and which are still in active use, and for which there are no identified 

alternatives. The process agents in this group are #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 21, 

31, 35, 38 and 39. India has advised that two of the process agents listed above, #4 and #6, will 

be phased out by the end of 2007. The CTOC recommends that they remain in Table A until the 

processes are no longer active. 

In the second group are five process agents that meet the technical criteria but are no longer in 

active use. These process agents that could thus be removed from Table A are #9, 16, 17, 18 and 

29. China advised that #29 overlapped to #30. The CTOC finds that this is thus a duplicate entry 

and recommends that it be removed from Table A. 

Thirdly, there are twelve process agents that the CTOC believes could be replaced by no- or 

low- ODP alternatives, including not-in-kind substitutes. In each case, some process 

development would be required, and expenditure would be required for this development and 

possibly for new items of manufacturing plant. The process agents that could be replaced are #3, 

5, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 36. 

Finally, there is a group of process agents about which no information was received in response 

to the call for information arising from Decision XVII/6(2). These four process agents in this 

group (#32, 33, 34 and 37), although having initially been judged to meet the technical criteria 

of Decision X/14, must be classified as ‘unable to assess’. 

The 29 new process agent applications listed in table A-bis in decision XVIII/8 were reviewed 

and the CTOC recommends that 11 applications (#40, 44, 46, 51, 53, 54, 56 59, 60, 67 and 68) 

meet the technical criteria for process agent uses but the other 18 applications do not meet the 

criteria (10 (#41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 50, 52, 55, 58 and 62) because the process is no longer 

operated, and 7 (#49, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65 and 66) because they are feedstock applications). One 

case (#42) was unable to assess due to no information received. 

Besides the tables A and A-bis mentioned above, another list of potential process agent 

applications with 29 cases has been submitted by China to the CTOC for its considerations. The 

CTOC made preliminary studies of those cases and concluded that 18 applications (#2, 3, 4, 5, 

6, 7, 9, 11, 12 (one of the two plants), 14, 18, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29) meet the technical 

criteria of process agents and could be listed by Parties as process agent uses, once complete 

information is provided as required by the process agent criteria. Until that information is 

received, the CTOC is ‘unable to assess’. 

Limited information about emissions and make-up quantities of ODS used on process agents 

was available. 
26 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

4.1.2 EUN of CFC-113 by Russian Federation (XVIII/8) 

The documents submitted by Russian Federation have been reviewed by the TEAP/CTOC. 

They disclose the selection measures and the major applications of CFC-113 as cleaning and 

degreasing solvent and unsuccessful results of research to find alternatives to CFC-113. They 

also disclose a willingness to import CFC-113 for this purpose. The Russian Federation cannot 

make the planned transition to non-ODS in their aerospace program any sooner than is 

proposed, and therefore the CTOC recommends the EUE for 2008 and 2009. If suitable supplies 

of CFC-113 can be obtained from foreign sources, it will not be necessary to use newly 

manufactured CFC-113. 

The CTOC will collaborate with rocket and aerospace experts to provide technical supports to 

the Russian Federation during the interim period. The useful experiences in the space 

technology in USA, Kazakhstan and Poland gained by the solvent experts in the CTOC will able 

to provide the advice for selecting alternative solvents to CFC-113 as well as improvements on 

containment systems through the collaboration in order to realize the time schedule of reducing 

the CFC-113 use planned by Russian Federation by 2010. 

4.1.3 Normal-Propyl Bromide (n-PB) Update (XVIII/11) 

n-PB is available in most regions, including Asia, with local productions in China, France, 

Israel, Jordan and the USA. The global consumption, as a solvent, increased at a growing rate of 

15-20% per year. It reached a plateau in 2005 but since then it seems to be declining in Europe 

and Japan. The global n-PB emission is estimated to be 5,000 to 10,000 metric tonnes per year. 

In Europe, n-PB use has been progressively phased out due to various labelling reclassifications 

as well as the 1999 VOC-Directive. 

The use of n-PB is promoted by its vendors as a substitute for trichloroethylene, 

perchloroethylene, HCFC-141b and ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in many 

applications. Thus its continuing use is supported by industry bodies, because it offers an 

effective replacement for solvents with higher ODP and chlorocarbons. 

Based on recent findings and until more toxicological test data becomes available, the American 

Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), for example, has recommended exposure 

guidelines for n-PB containing solvent to be limited to 10 ppm. So far only one of the n-PB 

vendors has reduced their recommended exposure guidelines to 10 ppm. 

4.1.4 Sources of carbon tetrachloride emissions and opportunities for reductions 

(XVIII/10) 

The CTOC study on this issue is still in progress and not yet complete, but can report the 

following results on the potential emissions of CTC from landfills. The levels of CTC resulting 

from emissions from landfills could be of the order of a few hundred tonnes per annum in 

OECD countries. These calculations indicate that there is insufficient concentration of CTC in 

landfill gas to account for the discrepancy between estimated industrial emissions of CTC and 

concentrations measured in the atmosphere. Other potential sources could include release from 

historical chemical dumps and emissions from groundwater contaminated with CTC but it is 

unlikely that such sources could provide sufficient sustained releases to account for the apparent 

discrepancy. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 27

4.1.5 Laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide (XVII/10) 

The CTOC considered this matter early in 2007 but was unable to provide any new information. 

It continues to review this issue, with a view to providing relevant information in future 

Progress Reports. 

4.2 Introduction 

The CTOC was mindful of the need for a limited report following its contribution to the TEAP 

2006 Assessment Report, and also of the request to consider the appropriateness of limited or 

less frequent meetings so as to ease pressure on the meetings budget. The Committee 

approached the task of preparing its 2007 Progress Report by allocating particular tasks to subgroups. 

A sub-group consisting of approximately half of the membership of the CTOC met in Singapore 

on 13-16 February, 2007. That subgroup included co-chairs: Ian Rae, Masaaki Yamabe and 

Jiang Biao; members: D.D. Arora, Steven Bernhardt, Jianxin Hu, Abid Merchant, Claudia 

Paratori, Hans Porre and Nee Sun Choong Kwet Yive (Robert). Work was undertaken in 

accordance with decisions XVII/6, XVII/7, XVII/8, and XVIII/8 to review the process agent 

applications in Table A and Table A-bis, and also to form a response to the request by the 

Russian Federation for an Essential Use Exemption for the use of CFC-113 in 2008-2010. The 

meeting also discussed a list of potential process agents submitted by China. The TEAP and the 

CTOC highly appreciate the Sino Chem. Corporation and the Asahi Glass Singapore Chemicals 

Pte for the support of the meeting expenses and for the arrangement of accommodations, 

respectively. 

Responses to decisions XVIII/11 (n-propyl bromide), XVIII/10 (CTC) and XVII/10 (laboratory 

and analytical uses of methyl bromide) were developed mainly by e-mail correspondence 

among CTOC members led by the corresponding lead authors, with information flowing to cochairs for incorporation in the 2007 Progress Report. 

4.3 Process Agents 

4.3.1 The CTOC review of Table A (decision XVII/6(7)) 

Decision XVII/6(7) taken at the Dakar MOP in 2005 included the following: 

To request the Technology and economic Assessment Panel to review the information 

submitted in accordance with this decision and to report and make recommendations to 

the Parties at their Twentieth Meeting in 2008, and every other year thereafter, on 

process-agent use exemptions; on insignificant emission associated with a use, and 

process-agent uses that could be added or deleted from table A of the decision X/14; 

Table A in decision XVII/7 was adopted as a revised table A for decision X/14 and subsequent 

revision through decisions at later Meetings of the Parties, and all the 39 applications have been 

recognized as process agent uses. The CTOC made an interim study for its report in 2008 on 

whether the process referred to in each case was still in operation or no longer operated by the 

information sought from Parties’ reporting. The results of the review of each of the 39 process 

agents are shown in Table 4.1. 
28 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Table 4.1 Current status of the process agent applications in table A 

No. Process agent 

application 

Substance Party References Parties Reporting Current Status on 

Operation 

 1. Elimination of NCl3 in 

the production of 

chlorine and caustic

CTC USA 

Other 

A(5) and 

non-A(5) 

countries 

1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#1) 

Not all Parties 

practising it. 

USA, EU, Brazil, 

Israel and Mexico 

reported 

Process still 

operated 

 2. Recovery of chlorine 

in tail gas from 

production of chlorine

CTC USA 

Other 

A(5) and 

non-A(5) 

countries 

1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#2) 

Not all Parties 

practising it. 

USA and EU 

reported. 

Process still 

operated 

 3. Manufacture of 

chlorinated rubber

CTC China, 

India, 

EU(Italy, 

Germany

) 

1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#3) 

EU and China still 

practising it. 

India converted it 

in 2005 

Process still 

operated in EU and 

China 

Could be replaced 

by non-ODS 

 4. Manufacture of 

endosulphan 

(insecticide)

CTC India 1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#4) 

India converting it 

by December 2007 

Process still 

operated 

 5. Manufacture of 

isobutyl 

acetophenone 

(ibuprofen – 

analgesic)

CTC India 

EU 

1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#5) 

India converted it 

in 2000. 

EU still practising 

it 

Process still 

operated in EU 

Could be replaced 

by non-ODS 

 6. Manufacture of 1-1, 

bis (4-chlorophenyl) 

2,2,2- trichloroethanol 

(dicofol insecticide)

CTC India 1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#6) 

India converting it 

by 2007. 

Process still 

operated 

 7. Manufacture of 

chlorosulphonated 

polyolefin (CSM)

CTC China, 

USA 

1997 PATF 

and 2001 

PATF Case 

Study #7) 

China and USA 

still practising it. 

Process still 

operated 

 8. Manufacture of polyphenylene-terephtalAmide

CTC EU 

(Netherla

nds) 

1997 and 

2001PATF 

(Case Study 

#8) 

EU still practising 

it 

Process still 

operated 

 9. Manufacture of 

fluoropolymer resins

CFC-113 USA, 

China 

1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#9) 

Both USA and 

China stopped to 

use it. 

No longer operated 

10. Manufacture of fine 

synthetic polyolefin 

fiber sheet

CFC-11 USA, 

EU 

1997 and 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#10) 

USA and EU still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

11. Manufacture of 

styrene butadiene 

rubber

CTC Brazil, 

Republic 

of 

Korea 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#11) 

Both Brazil and 

Republic of Korea 

no longer in 

operation. 

No longer operated 

12. Manufacture of 

chlorinated paraffin

CTC China, 

India 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#12) 

China still 

practising it? India 

stopped operation 

in 2005. 

Process still 

operated in China? 

No use in India. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 29

No. Process agent 

application 

Substance Party References Parties Reporting Current Status on 

Operation 

13. Photochemical 

synthesis of 

perfluoropolyetherpol

yperoxide precursors 

of Zperfluoropolyethers 

and difunctional 

derivatives 

CFC-12 EU 2002 TEAP 

2001PATF 

(Case Study 

#14) 

EU still practising 

it 

Process still 

operated 

14. Reduction of 

perfluoropolyetherpol

yperoxide 

intermediate for 

production of 

perfluoropolyether 

diesters 

CFC-113 EU 2002 TEAP 

2001PATF 

(Case Study 

#15) 

EU still practising 

it 

Process still 

operated 

15. Preparation of 

perfluoropolyether 

diols with high 

functionality

CFC-113 EU 2002 TEAP 

2001PATF 

(Case Study 

#16) 

EU still practising 

it 

Process still 

operated 

16. Bromohexine 

hydrochloride

CTC India 2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#19) 

India converted it 

in 2000. 

No longer operated 

17. Diclofenac sodium CTC India 2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#20 

India converted it 

in 2000 

No longer operated 

18. Phenyl glycine CTC India 2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#22) 

India converted it 

in 2000. 

No longer operated 

19. Production of 

Cyclodime

CTC EU, 

China 

2002 TEAP 

2001 PATF 

(Case Study 

#26) 

EU and China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be replaced 

by non-ODS 

20. Production of 

chlorinated 

polypropene

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

Progress 

Report 

Chapter 9 

(No.34) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

21. Production of 

chlorinated EVA

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.35) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

22. Production of methyl 

isocyanate 

derivatives

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.36) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be replaced 

by non-ODS 

23. Production of 3-

phenoxy 

benzaldehyde

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.37) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be replaced 

by non-ODS 

24. Production of 2-

chloro-5-

methylpyridine

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.38) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be replaced 

by non-ODS 

25. Production of 

Imidacloprid

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.39) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be replaced 

by non-ODS 
30 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

No. Process agent 

application 

Substance Party References Parties Reporting Current 

Status on 

Operation 

26. Production of 

Buprofenzin

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.40) 

China still 

practicing it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be 

replaced by 

non-ODS 

27. Production of 

Oxadiazon

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.41) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be 

replaced by 

non-ODS 

28. Production of 

chloradized Nmethylaniline

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.42) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be 

replaced by 

non-ODS 

29. Production of 

Mefenacet

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.43) 

China still 

practising it only 

in the production 

of its intermediate, 

DCBT.(See #30) 

Recommend 

to delete 

30. Production of DCBT 

(1,3-

dichlorobenzothiazole

)

CTC China 2002 TEAP 

(No.44) 

China still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be 

replaced by 

non-ODS 

31. Bromination of a 

styrenic polymer

BCM USA 2002 TEAP 

(No.45) 

USA still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

32. Synthesis of ascorbic 

acid

CTC DPR 

Korea 

2004 PATF Waiting for 

information from 

DPR Korea 

No 

information 

33. Synthesis of 

ciprofloxacin

CTC DPR 

Korea 

2004 PATF Waiting for 

information from 

DPR Korea 

No 

information 

34. Synthesis of 

norfloxacin

CTC DPR 

Korea 

2004 PATF Waiting for 

information from 

DPR Korea 

No 

information 

35. Synthesis of 2,4D 

(2,4-

dichlorophenoxyaceti

c acid)

CTC Romania 2004 PATF 

(2006 TEAP) 

Romania still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

36. Synthesis of DHEPC 

(di (2-ethylhexyl) 

peroxydicarbonate )

CTC Romania 2004 PATF 

(2006 TEAP) 

Romania still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 

Could be 

replaced by 

non-ODS 

37. Production of sodium 

dichloroisocyanurate

CTC DPR 

Korea 

2004 PATF Waiting for 

information from 

DPR Korea 

No 

information 

38. Production of radiolabelled 

cyanocobalamin

CTC EU (UK) 2004 PATF EU still practising 

it 

Process still 

operated 

39. Production of high 

modulus polyethylene 

fiber

CFC-113 USA 2004 PATF USA still 

practising it 

Process still 

operated 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 31

The thirty nine process agents can be grouped in ways that will be helpful for the Parties in their 

decision-making. 

In the first group the CTOC places eighteen process agents which meet the technical criteria set 

out in Decision X/14 and which are still in active use, and for which there are no obvious 

alternatives. The process agents in this group are: 

#1 CTC in elimination of NCl3 in production of chlorine and caustic 

#2 CTC in recovery of chorine in tail gas from production of chlorine 

#4 CTC in manufacture of endosulphan (insecticide)* 

#6 CTC in manufacture of 1,1-bis(4-chlorophenyl)2,2,2-trichloroethanol (docofol, 

insecticide)* 

#7 CTC in manufacture of chlorosulfonated polyolefin CSM) 

#8 CTC in manufacture of polyphenylene terephthalamide 

#10 CFC-113 in manufacture of fine synthetic polyolefin sheet 

#11 CTC in manufacture of styrene butadiene rubber 

#12 CTC in manufacture of chlorinated paraffin 

#13 CFC-12 in photochemical synthesis of perfluorpolyetherpolyperoxide precursors of Zperfluoropolyethers and difunctional derivatives 

#14 CFC-113 in reduction of perfluoropolyetherpolyperoxide intermediate for production of 

perfluoropolyether diesters 

#15 CFC-113 in production of perfluoropolyetherdiols with high functionality 

#20 CTC in production of chlorinated polypropylene 

#21 CTC in production of chlorinated EVA 

#31 BCM in bromination of styrenic polymer 

#35 CTC in production of 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid 

#38 CTC in production of radio-labeled cyanocobalamin 

#39 CFC-113 in production of high modulus polyethylene fibre 

* India has advised that two of the process agents listed above, #4 and #6, will be 

phased out by the end of 2007. The CTOC recommends that they remain in table A 

until the processes are no longer active. 

In the second group are five process agents that meet the technical criteria but are no longer in 

active use. These process agents could be removed from table A: 

#9 CFC-113 in manufacture of fluoropolymer resins 

#16 CTC in manufacture of bromohexine hydrochloride 

#17 CTC in manufacture of dicofenac sodium 

#18 CTC in manufacture of phenyl glycine 

#29 CTC in production of mefanacet* 

* China advises that the last of these process agents (#29) relates to the production of 

DCBT (1,3-dichlorobenzothiazole, #30). The CTOC finds that this is thus a duplicate 

entry and recommends that it be removed from table A. 

Thirdly, there are twelve process agents that the CTOC believes could be replaced by 

alternatives that are low-ODP or no-ODP substances and processes. In each case, some process 

development would be required, and expenditure would be required for this development and 

possibly for new items of manufacturing plant. The process agents that could be replaced are: 

#3 CTC in manufacture of chlorinated rubber 

#5 CTC in manufacture of isobutyl acetophenone (ibuprofen, analgesic) 

#19 CTC in production of cyclodime 
32 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

#22 CTC in production of methyl isocyanate derivatives 

#23 CTC in production of 3-phenoxy benzaldehyde 

#24 CTC in production of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine 

#25 CTC in production of imidocloprid 

#26 CTC in production of buprofenzin 

#27 CTC in production of oxadiazon 

#28 CTC in production of chloradized N-methylaniline 

#30 CTC in production of DCBT (1,3-dichlorobenzothiazole) 

#36 CTC in production of di-(2-ethylhexyl)peroxydicarbonate 

Finally, there is a group of process agents about which no information was received in response 

to the call for information in decision XVII/6(2). These four process agents in this group, while 

having initially been judged to meet the technical criteria of Decision X/14, must be classified 

as ‘unable to assess’. 

#32 CTC in synthesis of ascorbic acid 

#33 CTC in synthesis of ciprofloxacin 

#34 CTC in synthesis of norfloxacin 

#37 CTC in production of sodium dichloroisocyanurate 

Updated information will be expected from the relevant Parties by 31 December 2007 for the 

rest of 34 applications for the further assessment in 2008. 

4.3.2 The CTOC review of interim table A-bis (decision XVII/8) 

At the Dakar meeting of the Parties, 29 new applications were received for process agents as 

shown in the interim table A bis of decision XVII/8. The TEAP/CTOC was requested to review 

those applications and advise if they could include in a reassessed table A for decision X/14 and 

report in 2007 to MOP-19. 

Since the applications listed in interim table A-bis had not previously been reviewed by the 

TEAP/CTOC, it was necessary to seek information on the nature of the processes, scale of 

production, the ODS involved, emissions or make-up quantities, and dates of the start-up for the 

process. Information was not available about any efforts that had been made to replace the ODS 

with other chemicals and/or to minimize emissions except for #50. The list of applications 

together with relevant data and comments from the CTOC is included in Table 4.2 below. 

Table 4.2 Table A-bis annotated by CTOC 

No. Process agent application 

(in China except #42) 

Substance 

Annual 

capacity 

in 2005 

(MT/Y) 

Date of 

start-up 

Make-up 

Quantities 

(MT) in 

2005 

2007 CTOC 

Comments 

40 

Production of 2-(p-Bromomethylphenyl) 

prop ionic acid (mistranslated as pbromobenzaldehyde) (intermediate) 

CTC 60 2000 33 

Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

41 Production of Fenvalerate (pesticide) CTC No longer in operation 

42 Manufacture of Losartan potassium BCM 

(Argentina) 

 

Unable to assess due 

to no information 

received 

43 Production of 1,2-Choro-1,4-

naphthoquinone (pharmaceutical) CTC No longer in operation 

44 Production of Prallethrin (pesticide) CTC 250 1997 71.20 Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

45 Production of 2-Methoxybenzoyl chloride 

(pharmaceutical) 

CTC No longer in operation 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 33

No. Process agent application 

(in China except #42) 

Substance 

Annual 

capacity 

in 2005 

(MT/Y) 

Date of 

start-up 

Make-up 

Quantities 

(MT) in 

2005 

2007 CTOC 

Comments 

180 1989 

200 1995 

50 1991 

46 Production of o-Nitrobenzaldehyde (dyes) 

(4 production lines) 

CTC 

30 1986 

235.47 

(in total 4 

plants) 

Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

47 Production of Salimusk (perfume) CTC No longer in operation 

48 Production of Epoxyconazole (pesticide) CTC No longer in operation 

49 Production of Benzophenone (chemical) CTC Feedstock application 

50 Production of Picloram; Lontrel 

(pesticide) CTC 

Converted to nonODS process in 2006 

in China 

51 Production of 3-Methyl-2-

Thiophenecarboxaldehyde 

CTC 15 1994 0.94 Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

52 Production of Difenoconazole (pesticide) CTC No longer in operation 

53 Production of 2-

Thiophenecarboxaldehyde (intermediate) CTC 135 1993 9.66 Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

54 Production of 2-Thiophene ethanol 

(pharmaceutical) 

CTC 240 1997 91.50 Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

55 Production of 5-Amino-1,2,3-thiadiazol CTC N/A 2003 N/A No longer in operation 

56 Production of Levofloxacin 

(pharmaceutical) 

CTC 1999 

(after 1 

July) 

Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

57 Production of cinnamic acid 

(intermediate) 

CTC Feedstock application 

58 Production of Ertaczo (pharmaceutical) CTC No longer in operation 

36 1992 

59 

Production of 3,5-Dinitrobenzoyl chloride 

(3,5-DNBC) (intermediate) 

(2 production lines) 

CTC 

10 2004 

20.20 

(in total 2 

plants) 

Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

30 2004 

60 Production of Fipronil (pesticide) 

(2 production lines) CTC 

30 2005 

20.00 

(in total 2 

plants) 

Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

61 Processing of aluminum and uranium CTC, CFC Feedstock application 

62 Production of Furfural (volume chemical) CTC No longer in operation 

63 Production of 3,3,3-Trifluoropropene 

(volume chemical) 

CTC Feedstock application 

64 Production of Triphenylmethylchloride 

(intermediate) 

CTC Feedstock application 

65 Production of Tetrachlorodimehylmethane 

(volume chemical) 

CTC Feedstock application 

66 Production of 4,4'-difluorodiphenyl 

ketone (intermediate) 

CTC Feedstock application 

200 2004 

280 2004 

181.41 

 (in total 2 

plants) 

400 2003 

67 

Production of 4-

trifluoromethoxybenzenamine 

(4 production lines) 

CTC 

50 2002 

N/A 

Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

 (Two different 

processes are used for 

the synthesis of this 

substance; one process 

as process agent and 

the other as 

feedstock.) 

68 Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone CTC 500 

1999 

(before 1 

July) 

389.06 

Meet process agent 

technical criteria 

(regarded as PA as 

well as Feedstock 

application) 
34 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

All but one of the applications are from China and have been included in the Sector Plan for 

Phaseout of ODS Process Agents in that Party. The exception is #42, use of 

bromochloromethane (BCM) in the production of Losartan potassium. The Process Agents Task 

Force (2004) had conducted a preliminary review of this application from another Party, but it 

was withdrawn and since no further information was received, it does not merit process agent 

status. 

Information was received that some cases of the processes listed in table A-bis are not process 

agents, but may be feedstock uses. The intensive examination by the CTOC of the submitted 

data confirmed that this was the case for seven of the applications, #49, 57, 61, 63, 64, 65, and 

66. Furthermore, each of the applications #67 and 68 concerned two processes for production of 

the same product, one process employing the ODS as process agent and the other as feedstock. 

Information was also received that nine of the submitted applications (#41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 

55, 58, and 62) had ceased operation. In addition, the methods of production of Picloram and 

Lontrel pesticides (#50) had been converted to non-ODS process in 2006 so that ODS 

(originally CTC) was no longer involved. 

Furthermore, for four of the submitted applications (#40, 56, 60, and 67) it is noticed that their 

start-up dates are after 1 July 1999. 

With these clarifications of the listed applications, the eleven continuing operations (#40 44, 46, 

51, 53, 54, 56 59, 60, 67 and 68) are provided in the form of a case study. 

4.3.3 Case Studies of the continuing process agent operations 

3⁄4 Table A-bis #40: Production of 2-(p-Bromomethylphenyl) propionic acid 

(intermediate) 

CTC is used as process agent in the bromination of 1-methylphenyl) propionic acid. 

CO2H

+ Br2

CTC CO2H

Br

+HBr

3⁄4 Table A-bis #44: Production of Prallethrin (pesticide) 

CTC is used as process agent for extracting the unreacted feedstock from the crude Prallethrin 

in the refining process. 

3⁄4 Table A-bis #46: Production of o-Nitrobenzaldehyde (for dyes) 

 CTC is used as process agent in bromination reaction of o-nitrotoluene and bromine. The 

brominated compound is subsequently converted to o-nitrobenzaldehyde. 

+ Br2

CTC

Br

+ HBr

NO2 NO2

3⁄4 Table A-bis #51: Production of 3-Methyl-2-thiophene carboxyaldehyde 

CTC is used as process agent for extracting 3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxyaldehyde from the 

crude product in the refining process. 

3⁄4 Table A-bis #53: 2-Thiophenecarboxyaldehyde (intermediate) 

CTC is used as process agent for extracting 2-thiophenecarboxaldehyde from the crude product 

in the refining process. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 35

3⁄4 Table A-bis #54: Production of 2-Thiophene ethanol (pharmaceutical) 

CTC is used as process agent for extracting 2-thiophene ethanol from the crude product in the 

refining process. 

3⁄4 Table A-bis #56: Production of Levofloxacin (pharmaceutical)

CTC is used as process agent for the reaction of ethanol with magnesium to form ethoxy 

magnesium, which will be reacted with diethyl malonate, the key intermediate for the 

production of Levofloxacin. 

Mg CTC

CH3CH2OH

CTC Recycled

magnesium-alcohol reaction condensation reaction

Diethyl Malonate

Following reactiong

3⁄4 Table A-bis #59: Production of 3,5-Dinitrobenzoyl chloride (3,5-DNBC) 

(intermediate) 

CTC is used as process agent for refining the crude 3,5-dinitrobenzoyl chloride. 

3⁄4 Table A-bis #60: Production of Fipronil (pesticide) 

CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of N,N-dimethyl 2-chloro-4-

trifloromethylaniline for preparation of 2,6-dichloro-4-trifloromethylaniline, the key 

intermediate for manufacturing Fipronil. 

CF3

Cl

N

CF3

Cl

N

SO2Cl2

+

CTC SO2Cl2

CF3

Cl

NH2

Cl Cl

3⁄4 Table A-bis #67: Production of 4-Trifluoro-methoxy-benzeneamine 

CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of methoxybenzene and chlorine gas. 

Several further steps are required to convert this first product into 4-trifluoromethoxy-benzeneamine. 

OCH3

+ Cl2

CTC/PCl3 OCCl3

+ 3HCl

AIBN

3⁄4 Table A-bis #68: Production of 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-ketone 

CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of this production process. 

In the last step (not shown here), this chlorinated product is converted to 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-

ketone. 

CO2H

S

S

HO2C

COCl

S

S

ClOC

COCl

SCl

CTC

SO2Cl2

CTC

Cl2

2
36 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

4.3.4 A potential list of process agent applications from China 

The People’s Republic of China has submitted a further list of twenty nine possible process 

agent applications for consideration by the TEAP/CTOC, and these are shown in Table 4.3, 

which also includes information provided by the Party in response to requests by the CTOC: 

nature of the process and identity of the ODS involved, annual capacity, emissions or make-up 

quantities, and start-up date for the process, as well as the CTOC comments. Information was 

not provided about investigations of alternatives to the use of ODS and/or changes made to 

processes to minimize emissions. 

Table 4.3 Comments of CTOC on the potential list of process agent applications from China 

No. Applications 

Number of 

production 

lines 

Annual 

capacity in 

2005 

Date of 

startup 

In 

continuous 

operation 

Comments of CTOC 

 CTC is used in all cases. (MT/y) 

1 2-(p-Bromomethylphenyl) 

propionic acid 1 60 2000 Yes Same as #40 in 

table A-bis 

2 2-chloro-5-

(trifluoromethyl) pyridine 1 150 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

3 2-methoxy-3-methyl 

pyrazine 2 2 2002 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

 15 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

4 2-Methyl-3-

tetrahydrofuranthiol 1 0.1 2002 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

5 4-Bromoanisole 1 100 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

6 4-Chloro-2-

Trichloromethyl pyridine 1 150 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

7 

Acryl amide (N-(1,1-

dimethyl-3-

oxobutyl)(DAAM)

1 300 2004 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

8 Chlorfluazuron 1 75 N/A No Could be process agent, 

but no longer operated 

9 Chloromethane-sulfonic 

ester 1 N/A 2005 No Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

10 Dope 2 250 2004 Yes Unable to assess. 

(Feedstock application?) 

 N/A N/A N/A Unable to assess. 

(Feedstock application?) 

11 Doxofylline 1 20 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

12 Ethyl-4-Chloroacetoacetate 2 N/A N/A N/A Unable to assess. More 

information needed 

 180 2004 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

13 GCLE 1 360 2003 No Unable to assess. More 

information needed 

14 m-Nitrobenzaldehyde 2 240 1991 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

 140 1995 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 37

No. Applications 

Number of 

production 

lines 

Annual 

capacity in 

2005 

Date of 

startup 

In 

continuous 

operation 

Comments of CTOC 

15 Ozagrel 1 N/A N/A Yes Unable to assess. More 

information needed. 

16 PVDF 1 500 1982 Yes 

Could be 

process 

agent More information 

needed 

17 Tetrafluorobenzoylethyl 

acetate 1 250 1992 Yes 

Could be process agent

More information needed 

on the role of CTC 

18 Tichlopidine 1 50 1998 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

19 Using as G.I. 1 N/A N/A Yes Unable to assess. 

20 β-Bromopropionic acid 1 N/A N/A Yes Unable to assess. 

21 3-Nitrophthalic anhydride 1 120 2000 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

22 4-Bromophenol 1 80 1998 Yes Could be process agent 

More information needed 

23 4-Nitrophthalic anhydride 1 36 2002 No Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

24 Chlorophenyl-triapentanol 1 200 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

25 4-Bromo-methyl 

dimethylbenzeneacetate 1 120 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

26 Initiator for produce oNitrobenzaldehyde 1 300 2002 Yes Same as #46 in table Abis 

27 m-Hydroxybenzaldehyde 1 60 2005 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

28 p-Nitro benzyl alcohol 1 96 1989 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

29 Tolclofos Methyl 1 200 1994 Yes Meets process agent 

technical criteria 

For two applications (#19 and 20), considerations of commercial confidentiality prevented 

submission of relevant data and so the CTOC is unable to assess them. One application (#10) 

appeared to be a feedstock application, not process agent. Three applications (#12 (one of the 

two plants), 13 and 15) are also unable to assess due to no information reported. The #8 

application is considered as a process agent use, but was no longer operated. The other three 

applications (#16, 17 and 22) could meet the process agent technical criteria but more 

information would be needed for the further assessment. 

Two applications (#1 and 26) are already included in the table A-bis (#40 and 46, respectively). 

The remaining 18 applications (#2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 (one of the two plants), 14, 18, 21, 23, 

24, 25, 27, 28, 29) could be qualified as process agents, even though a number of the 

applications have start-up dates later than 30 June 1999. 
38 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

4.3.5 Case studies for the chemical reactions in Table 4.3 

1. 2-(p-Bromomethylphenyl) propionic acid 

CTC is used as process agent in bromination reaction of 1-methylphenyl) propionic acid and 

bromine. 

CO2H

+ Br2

CTC CO2H

Br

+HBr

2. 2-Chloro-5-(trifluoromethyl)pyridine 

CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine and chlorine 

gas to yield 2-chloro-5-(trichloromethyl)pyridine, the precursor of 2-Chloro-5- (trifluoromethyl) 

pyridine. 

N

+ 3Cl2

CTC

N

CCl3

+ 3HCl

Cl Cl

3. 2-Methoxy-3-methylpyrazine 

CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of 2-methylpyrazine and chlorine gas for 

synthesis of 2-chloro-3-methylpyrazine, the intermediate of 2-methoxy-3-methylpyrazine.

N

N

+ Cl2

CTC

N

N CH3

+ HCl

Cl

4. 2-Methyl-3-tetrahydrofuranthiol 

CTC is used as process agent in bromination reaction of dihydrofuran and bromine. 

O

Br + 2

O Br

CTC Br

5. 4-Bromoanisole 

CTC is used as process agent in the bromination reaction of anisole. 

+ Br2

CTC OCH3

+ HBr

OCH3

Br

6. 4-Chloro-2-trichloromethyl pyridine 

CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of 4-chloro-2-methyl pyridine to 

produce 4-chloro-2-trichloromethyl pyridine. 

N

+ 3Cl2

CTC

N

+ 3HCl

H3C Cl3C

Cl Cl

7. Diacetone acrylamide 

CTC is used as process agent for refining crude diacetone acrylamide in this production process. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 39

8. Chlorfluazuron 

CTC used as process agent in chlorination reaction of 2-chloro-5-methylpyridine with chlorine 

gas. 

N

+ 3Cl2

CTC

N

CCl3

+ 3HCl

Cl Cl

9. Chloromethylsulfonic ester 

CTC used as process agent in esterification reaction of methanal (formaldehyde) and 

chlorosulfonic acid. 

CH2O + ClSO3H ClCH2SO3H

CTC

10. Dope 

CTC is added in dope to improving its performance, such as fireproofing performance. 

11. Doxofylline 

CTC is used as process agent in the bromination reaction which is one step in the doxofylline 

production process. 

O

O

O

O Br

+ Br + HBr 2

12. Ethyl-4-chloroacetoacetate 

CTC is used as process agent in chlorination reaction of ethyl-4-chloroacetoacetate production 

process. 

+ Cl2

CTC

O O Cl

O

Cl

O

O

O

Cl

EtOH O

13. GCLE 

CTC is used as extraction agent for refining crude GCLE in GCLE production process. (GCLE 

is an abbreviation of 7-phenylacetamide-3-chloromethyl-3-cepham-4-carboxylic acid pmethoxybenzyl ester.) 

14. m-Nitrobenzaldehyde 

CTC is used as process agent for refining the crude product in this production process. 

15. Ozagrel 

The enterprise refused to provide any information in view of technology secret and so CTOC 

was unable to assess this application. 

16. PVDF 

CTC is used as dispersant in pyrolysis of chlorodifluoroethane to produce vinylidene fluoride 

monomer. (PVDF is an abbreviation of poly(vinylidene fluoride). 
40 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

17. Tetrafluorobenzoyl ethyl acetate 

CTC is used as process agent in reaction of powdered magnesium and ethanol. 

Mg + CH3CH2OH CTC

CH3CH2OMgCH(CO2Et)2 (CH3CH2O)2Mg

CH2(CO2Et)2

This application is the same as that in #56 of the table A-bis, although the use to which product 

is put (synthesis of a final product) is different. 

18. Tichlopidine 

CTC is used as process agent in bromination reaction in this production process. 

S

Br2 +

CTC

S Br

+ HBr

19. Using as G.I. 

The enterprise refused to provide any information because the technology is secret. Therefore, it 

cannot be accepted that the application is potential process agent application since CTOC is 

unable to assess it. 

20. β-Bromopropionic acid 

The enterprise refused to provide any information because the technology is secret. Therefore, it 

cannot be accepted that the application is potential process agent application since CTOC is 

unable to assess it. 

21. 3-Nitrophthalic anhydride 

CTC is used for crystallization of product in this production process. 

22. 4-Bromophenol 

CTC is used as process agent for refining the product in this production process. 

23. 4-Nitrophthalic anhydride 

CTC is used for crystallization of the product in this production process. 

24. Chlorophenyl-triapentanol 

CTC is used as process agent for the addition reaction in this production process. 

O

Cl

N

H

N

N

+

Cl

OH

N

N

N

CTC

25. 4-Bromodimethylbenzeneacetate 

CTC is used as process agent in bromination reaction in this production process. 

CO2H CO2H

Br

Br + 2 + HBr
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 41

26. Initiator for production of o-nitrobenzaldehyde 

CTC is added in initiator for produce o-nitrobenzaldehyde as thinner to keep stabilization of 

initiator and prevent it from exploding. This application is listed as #46 in table A-bis. 

27. m-Hydroxybenzaldehyde 

CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of this production process. 

Cl + 2

OAc OAc

CHCl2

+ HCl

CTC

28. p-Nitrobenzyl alcohol 

CTC is used as process agent in the bromination reaction in this production process. 

Br + 2

CH2Br

+ HBr

CTC

NO2 NO2

29. Tolclofos methyl 

CTC is used as process agent in the chlorination reaction of this production process.

Cl + 2

Cl

+ HCl

CTC

OH OH

Cl

4.3.6 ODS emissions and make-up quantities reported by Parties 

Decision XVIII/6 taken at the Dakar MOP in 2005 included the following: 

6. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Executive 

Committee to report to the Open-ended Working Group at its twenty-seventh meeting in 2007, 

and every other year thereafter unless the Parties decide otherwise, on the progress made in 

reducing emissions of controlled substances from process-agent uses; the associated make-up 

quantity of controlled substances; on the implementation and development of emissionsreduction techniques and alternative processes and products not using ozone-depleting 

substances; 

In the time available, the CTOC has not been able to coordinate its work with that of the 

Executive Committee, but in gathering information about the continuing relevance of the 

process agents listed in table A, the CTOC received the following information on ODS for 

process agent uses from Parties. 

Party Emission (MT) Make Up (MT) 

EC < Table B figure (2005) 

Israel 3.3/2005 

Mexico 40.99/2006 

Romania 173.0/Ave 2000-2002 

USA 46* 1626*/2005 

* ODP-weighted quantity 
42 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

In addition, China has provided information regarding those uses in table A-bis. For the entries 

that are judged by the CTOC to meet the requirements for acceptance as process agents, the 

total make up quantity is 819.03 MT. 

4.4 Essential Use Nomination of CFC-113 by the Russian Federation (XVIII/8) 

4.4.1 Introduction 

The ozone depleting substance CFC-113 (1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane) is used in the 

civilian space program of the Russian Federation. A late request from the Russian Federation 

for an Essential Use Exemption shown in the table below in respect of this use was received in 

2006 and a brief comment was made in the May 2006 report of the TEAP, as follows: 

2006 EUN by Russian Federation 

Year Quantity (tonnes) 

2007 150 

2008 140 

2009 130 

2010 120 

Specific Usage: Solvent cleaning with CFC-113 for the manufacture of fine mechanical devices 

for the Russian Federal Space Agency. 

Recommendation: TEAP: Unable to recommend because its nomination was received by UNEP 

after the submission deadline. CTOC: Prepared to review the nomination for 2007. Parties may 

wish to consider a one-year essential use exemption while TEAP and its TOCs properly 

evaluate the nomination and seek sources of stockpiled CFC-113. 

Comments: 

The Ozone Secretariat received this nomination on 19 April 2006, just before the TEAP met to 

complete the 2006 Progress Report. The nomination documented in detail diminishing uses of 

CFC-113 and the adoption of alternatives. Until 2006, CFC-113 was available from stockpiles, 

which have been depleted. In 2001 use of CFC-113 was 241 metric tonnes, but since then 

several alternative solvents and techniques have been implemented. TEAP notes that 65% of the 

quantity used is released to the atmosphere. With more time the CTOC could explore in detail 

whether other alternatives have been identified by other Space Agencies or whether they face 

similar problems. 

Leading up to decision XVIII/8 (see below) at MOP-18 to grant an Essential Use Exemption for 

use of 150 metric tonnes of CFC-113 in 2007, the Russian Federation provided two documents, 

and the US government made available a 1995 report on the use of non-ODP alternative 

substances in their domestic space program. There was insufficient time to incorporate the 

information contained in these documents in the 2006 CTOC/TEAP report and so that 

information is presented here. As well as examining documents, TEAP co-chair Dr. Andersen 

and CTOC co-chairs Dr. Yamabe and Dr. Rae held extensive discussions during 2006 with 

delegates from the Russian Federation. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 43

4.4.2 Decision XVIII/8: Essential-use exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace 

applications in the Russian Federation for 2007 

Decision XVIII/8 states as follows: 

Recalling that the Russian Federation has submitted a nomination for an essential-use 

exemption for chlorofluorocarbon-113 for aerospace applications in the Russian 

Federation, 

Noting that the nomination by the Russian Federation was submitted on 15 April 2006, 

several weeks after the deadline required for the essential use exemption process set out 

in decision IV/25, 

Regretting that the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee were not provided sufficient time to review that 

nomination in detail and report to the Parties three months ahead of the Eighteenth 

Meeting of the Parties in accordance with the time schedule prescribed, 

Recalling that consultations took place between the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel and the Russian Federation during the twenty-sixth meeting of the 

Open-ended Working Group and thereafter and that, following such consultations, the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel stated in its May 2006 progress report that 

Parties might wish to consider granting the Russian Federation a one-year essential use 

exemption, 

Taking into account the information already made available by the Russian Federation 

in relation to its nomination for an essential use exemption for aerospace applications, 

which contains data on the anticipated gradual reduction of the Party’s expected needs 

until 2010, 

Recalling that the Russian Federation has indicated that the amount of ozone-depleting 

substances being used for aerospace applications has been constantly decreasing owing 

to research into and transition to alternative ozone-safe substances and technologies and 

that the amount of chlorofluorocarbon-113 being used has been reduced from 241 

metric tonnes in 2001 to 160 metric tonnes in 2006, 

1. To permit the Russian Federation a level of production and consumption of 150 

metric tonnes of chlorofluorocarbon-113 for its essential use in the aerospace industry 

of the Russian Federation in 2007; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee to complete a comprehensive assessment of the 

information made available in the nomination submitted by the Russian Federation and, 

on the basis of any additional information that may be required from the Russian 

Federation, to conclude its analysis taking into account that the information underlying 

such analysis should address comprehensively the reason why existing alternatives to 

CFC-113 would not be applied for the use concerned; 

3. To call upon the Russian Federation to continue to cooperate closely with the 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options 

Committee further to the present decision and to submit, in accordance with the 

requirements of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee, the additional detailed technical information mentioned 
44 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

in paragraph 2 on the use of chlorofluorocarbon-113 that may be required until the 

completion of the assessment; 

4. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee to review all the information provided, as specified in 

paragraphs 2 and 3, and present the results of that review to the Open-Ended Working 

Group at its twenty-seventh meeting, in 2007; 

5. To call upon the Russian Federation: 

(a) To consider further the use of foreign sources of chlorofluorocarbon-113 stockpiles 

identified by the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals 

Technical Options Committee as a contribution for addressing the needs mentioned 

under paragraph 1 or any possible future needs; 

(b) To consider further the possibility of, and a timetable for, introducing the use of any 

new alternatives to chlorofluorocarbon-113 that become available and to continue its 

research and development activities with a view to finding new alternatives; 

6. To further call upon the Russian Federation to provide in due time to the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee, for 

the purpose of any future nomination of that Party for essential-use exemptions for 

chlorofluorocarbon-113 in relation to aerospace applications, comprehensive 

information in accordance with the conditions set out in decision IV/25; 

7. To take into consideration the outcome of the continued consultations mentioned in 

paragraphs 2 to 4 between the Russian Federation and the Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel and its Chemicals Technical Options Committee on the amount 

authorized for essential uses in 2007, in reviewing any possible additional nomination 

by the Russian Federation for aerospace applications for 2008. 

4.4.3 Document from the Russian Federation 

Following the inclusion in the May 2006 report of the Technical and Economic Assessment 

Panel (TEAP) (UNEP/OzL.pro.WG.1/26/L.1/Add.2) of comments relating to their request (see 

Appendix 2 to this paper), the Russian Federation provided an unofficial translation of a paper 

entitled ‘Complementary Materials to Russian Federation Application for Exemption Regarding 

Principal Uses of CFC-113 in 2007-2010’. A summary of this paper follows. 

1. Use of ozone-depleting CFCs and halons controlled by the Montreal Protocol 

in Space Industry. 

A number of CFCs and halons had been widely used in the industry before the 

introduction of the Montreal Protocol. In particular, CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-13 were 

used in heat transfer and cooling applications. CFC-113 is used in cleaning and 

degreasing processes and also in strength and leak tests of parts and assembly units for 

space rocket hardware. Alternatives have been found for all these substances except the 

most critical one, CFC-113. Because of its universal solvent properties and excellent 

technical and consumer properties, its applications cover fuel tanks, pipeline fittings, 

precision gyro units and accelerometers of control systems, and other fine mechanical 

instruments and systems. 

2. Technical issues of the use and possible options for substitution of CFC-113. 

2.1 List of components, parts, and assembly units using CFC-113 in cleaning and 

degreasing processes. Materials used in manufacture of these components, parts and 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 45

assembly units. 2.1.1 has a number of sub-sections in which the components, parts and 

assemblies are listed. 2.1.2 lists the metals and alloys and the non-metal materials 

(synthetic polymers). 

2.2 Russian industry standards governing the use of solvents for cleaning and 

degreasing of components, parts and assembly units (including electronic ones) of 

space rocket hardware. 2.2.1 notes that CFC-113 production is governed by State 

Standard 23844-79. 2.2.2 lists a number of Industry Standards and Guidelines for the 

cleaning and testing operations, including two relating to detergent water solutions. 

2.3 Comparative data on purification efficiency of CFC-113 and alternative 

solvents used in cleaning and degreasing of components, parts and assemblies. Key 

data are presented in Table 1. 

Test Description Solvent 

 CFC-113 HCFC-122 HCFC-141b 

 1 Degreasing and cleaning effect 

(kauri butanol value), units 

 31 86 56 

 2 Contaminant solution rate (interdiffusion coefficient), cm2

/s 

 3.3 x 10-6 3.9 x 10-6 5.4 x 10-6

 3 Cleanliness achieved in surface 

processing/removal of mechanical 

impurities (surface residual 

impurity), mg/m2

Within 20-5 Within 15-5 Within 15-5 

It can be seen that HCFC-122 and HCFC-141b have better characteristics in the first 

two tests, but there is little difference on the third. Such solvents as methylene chloride 

and BR-1 solvent (Nefras C2-80/120) consisting of pre-treated through distillation and 

rectification benzene proved to have a strength equal to that of CFC-113, as applied to 

cleaning and degreasing processes.' 

2.4 Description of existing alternative substances. Grounds for unsuitability of 

alternatives for cleaning and degreasing structural materials, components, parts and 

assemblies of space rocket hardware. Performed and ongoing researches to find new 

alternatives. Ozone-safe organic solvents such as benzene, alcohols and ethers can 

match the solvent power of CFC-113 in most applications. However, these solvents 

present explosion and fire hazards. Ozone-safe organic chlorine solvents can have even 

better solvent power than CFC-113 but this can be a disadvantage with some non-metal 

materials. Also, they cannot match CFC-113 for chemical stability (stabilizers have to 

be added), toxicity and explosion and fire safety. The HCFCs are suitable for most 

applications but, because of their solvent power, not those involving non-metals. Also, 

residual hydrocarbons cannot be detected in their presence (presumably infrared 

analysis, for which CFC-113 is suitable). The document points the way to the 

establishment of production facilities for HCFCs 122, 122a and 141b, and development 

of appropriate procedures for their use. The use of detergent water solutions was 

explored but these were not found to reduce surface contamination below 50 mg/m2

 and 

there were special difficulties with contamination in places like slot gaps and blind 

spaces. With open surfaces, performance comparable with that of CFC-113 has been 

achieved and such procedures are used routinely now. Satisfactory performance has 

been demonstrated for mixtures involving such components as FOL-62, Novec HFE7100 and R-4062 (highly fluorinated) and research continues with them. 

3. List of activities on gradual reduction of the use of CFC-113. Table 2,

reproduced below, gives the schedule. 
46 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

 Item Action description Date 

 1 Further work on reviewing the possibility for the use of approved 

ozone-friendly and ozone-safe CFC-113 alternatives (HCFC-122, 

HCFC-122a, HCFC-141b ....) for processing of components, parts, 

and assembly units of space rocket hardware. 

 2007 

 2 Development and testing of new technologies designed to minimize 

the use of CFC-113 and other volatile solvents in cleaning, 

degreasing, washing, and testing of parts and assembly units of 

space rocket hardware. 

 2007 

 3 Adaptation and testing of the equipment operated by industry 

enterprises for cleaning, degreasing, washing, and testing of parts 

and assembly units of space rocket hardware with ozone-safe and 

ozone-friendly solvents. 

 2008 

 4 Development, manufacture, and testing of technological equipment 

that provides economical consumption of volatile solvents. 

 2008 

 5 Research, tests, and approval of new and more efficient ozone-safe 

and ozone-friendly solvents alternative to CFC-113 in space rocket 

production. 

 2009 

 6 Development of engineering documentation for standard designs of 

new technological equipment for cleaning, degreasing, and washing 

of parts and assembly units for space rocket hardware with ozonesafe and ozone-friendly solvents. 

 2009 

 7 Manufacture and operational development of prototype models of 

new technological equipment for cleaning, degreasing, and washing 

of parts and assembly units of space rocket hardware with ozonesafe and ozone-friendly solvents. 

 2010 

 8 In-production testing of technological processes for cleaning, 

degreasing and washing of parts and assembly units of space rocket 

hardware with new types of ozone-safe and ozone-friendly solvents 

and new technological equipment. 

 2010 

 9 Resolving or organizational issues with Russian ministries and 

agencies in order to create and operate capabilities for production of 

ozone-safe freons including HCFC-122, HCFC-122a, HCFC-141b 

and other solvents alternative to CFC-113. 

 2006-

2008 

 

4. Substantiation of inexpediency of acquisition and use of CFC-113 from 

foreign sources. In the Russian federation CFC-113 is produced as an end product of 

the polymer plant of B.P. Konstantinov Chemical Production Complex in KirovoChepets and the Khimprom public corporation in Volgograd until December 2001. It is 

governed by the State Standard mentioned above. The State Standard is summarized in 

Table 3, below. 

 # Characteristics GOST 

23844-79 spec 

 1 Physical state Clear, colorless fluid 

 2 Mass content of trichlorotrifluoroethane (main substance), %, min. 99.96 

 3 Mass content of dichlorotetrafluoroethane, %, max. 0.01 

 4 Mass content of tetrachlorodifluoroethane, %, max. 0.01 

 5 Mass content of other impurities defined by chromatographic 

method, % each, max. 

 0.01 

 6 Mass content of fixed residues, %, max. 0.001 

 7 Mass content of free chlorine, %, max. 0 

 8 Mass content of water, %, max 0.003 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 47

The content of fluorescent soluble impurities, in particular mineral oils, fats and other 

organic compounds, in domestic CFC-113 did not exceed 10-15 mg/l (0.0001%). There 

are particularly strict requirements for these substances and water and acidity, so 

additional purification by distillation is used to ensure this. Samples of CFC-113 from 

two foreign sources, China and India, were obtained and their purity was checked. The 

results are reported in Table 4 (below). 

 # Characteristics GOST 

23844-79 

specs 

Actual 

characteristics of 

foreign samples 

 1 Mass content of 

trichlorotrifluoroethane (main 

substance) % 

>99.96 96.0 – 98.0 

 2 Mass content of fixed residue, % <0.001 0.005 – 0.008 

 3 Mass content of water, % <0.003 0.01 – 0.015 

In addition, the fat content of the foreign samples was 30-60 mg/L, far above the 

Russian industry standard. It was felt that import of CFC-113 from industrially 

developed countries would be difficult given the lack of mutually agreed standards. In 

addition, the Russian federation did not wish to be 'dependent on foreign suppliers and 

international economical and political situation'. 

4.4.4 Comments on supply of CFC-113 to the Russian Federation from foreign sources 

In discussions with delegates of the Russian Federation, the case was put that the US held stocks 

of CFC-113 that were of good quality – likely to meet the requirements of the State Standard 

discussed above – and that these could be made available. The gain for the US would be that 

cost of destruction of this material would be avoided, and the world gain would be that there 

would be no need to produce CFC-113 for this use in the Russian Federation. It should be noted 

that CFC-113 is produced in a number of countries as a feedstock in the production of the 

monomer chlorotrifluoroethylene which is used to produce valuable polymers. 

4.4.5 Document from the United States 

This document, entitled 'Handbook of Solid Rocket Motor Manufacturing within the United 

States. Eliminating Use of Ozone Depleting Substances in Solid Rocket Motor Manufacturing', 

dated February 1995, was available in hard copy only. 

The document explains the basic steps in the manufacture of solid rocket motors, the uses to 

which ozone depleting substances (ODS) were put, the identification of alternatives and the 

testing of rocket motors produced using these alternatives. The main ODS used were TCA 

(1,1,1-trichloroethane, methyl chloroform) and CFC-113, which were phased out by 2002 and 

1997 respectively. 

Three types of action facilitated the phase outs: 

• managerial – point of use inventory control and management, manufacturing method 

changes (elimination of greasing and consequent degreasing), and manufacturing 

specification changes; 

• solvent capture and recycling; and 

• substitution of ODS with aqueous cleaners in mechanical washers, and with semiaqueous cleaners in which the organic component was usually terpene. 
48 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

The report also includes comments on the disadvantages brought about by the phase out of 

ODS. 'ODS substitutes may increase the number and duration of manufacturing steps and often 

increase the volume of liquid handled and disposed. For example, substituting an aqueous 

cleaner for TCA results in increasing liquid handled from 55 gallons TCA evaporated during 

use to 500 gallons of water and aqueous cleaning solution that must be treated prior to disposal.' 

4.4.6 The 2007 EUN from the Russian Federation 

On 24 January 2007 the Ozone Secretariat received a request from the Russian 

Federation submitting a request, in accordance with decision XVIII/8, for a EUN for use of 

CFC-113 in their aerospace industry. The Russian federation also sought advice from the 

Secretariat on the procedures for obtaining samples of CFC-113 that might be available for 

'purchase from foreign ODS banks identified by TEAP and its TOC and the conformity of this 

CFC-113 with the Russian standard and branch norms'. 

The request from the Russian Federation included much of the information set out in their 

document described above in Section 3.3 of this report. The EUN covers the years 2008 and 

2009, as follows: 

Ozone Depleting Substance 2008 MT 2009 MT 

 CFC-113 140.0 130.0 

 Total 140.0 130.0 

The consumption by the Russian Federation in previous years (metric tonnes) was reported as 

follows: 

 ODS 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 

 CFC-113 241.0 189.0 190.0 175.0 173.0 160.0 150.0 

Other important information provided in the Russian Federation EUN concerned the 

fate of the CFC-113 used in the aerospace program. 

ODS % Contained 

in Product 

% Released in 

Manufacture or Use

% Destroyed 

or Recycled 

Total 

CFC-113 0 70 30 100 

4.4.7 Concluding remarks 

The solvent experts in CTOC discussed this case and their advice is as follows: 

3⁄4 Use of HCFCs as alternatives to CFC-113 is only a temporary solution as cleaning 

agents. These HCFCs (122, 122a, 123, 141b and 225) are ozone depleters which will be phased 

out of use in the future. Only in the interim period, HCFC-225 could be a substitute of CFC-113 

due to its excellent performance already experienced in cleaning of oxygen systems etc. Further, 

serious toxicity concerns need to be addressed to properly handle HCFC-122 and 122a. The 

CTOC recommends exploring commercially available alternatives with zero ozone depletion 

potential such as HFCs, HFEs and blends, as well as not-in-kind alternatives as long term 

replacements. 

3⁄4 In 2000 a group of experts in the field of precision cleaning visited one of the Russian 

torpedo manufacturing sites in Kazakhstan. The focus of the visit was to share information and 

technical know-how on precision-engineered instrument and oxygen system cleaning with nonODS solvents. Samples of alternatives were provided for evaluation. A similar visit was also 

made to Poland’s navy, which was using the Russian-made equipment that required CFC-113 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 49

for cleaning oxygen systems. These sites had agreed to submit their evaluations of alternatives 

for cleaning oxygen systems to the then-STOC, but no information was received. 

3⁄4 In addition to replacement of CFC-113 by other solvents, there are opportunities to 

reduce use of CFC-113 through improved containment systems in the equipment used in the 

cleaning operations. In other jurisdictions, quantities of CFC-113 required for particular 

operations can be reduced by up to 80% through such engineering changes. The replacement of 

equipment is somewhat more expensive, but information about upgrading the existing 

equipment could also be available. A decision would be made on cost-effectiveness grounds, 

taking into account direct costs and such factors as down-time involved in upgrading. 

As experience in the United States has shown, the replacement of ozone depleting substances in 

almost all applications in the domestic space program is possible, but that even with 

extraordinary efforts some essential uses remain today. The Russian Federation timetable is a 

measured one, with testing of alternatives to be followed by construction and testing of 

necessary equipment in which the alternatives would be used, and finally implementation 

sometime after 2010. Along with these scientific and engineering steps, there needs to be 

change in government regulations and establishment of new standards for purity and 

effectiveness of alternative substances. 

It might be expected, then, that complete phase out of CFC-113 could only take place after 2010 

but should proceed quickly then, as new practices are adopted. In the meantime, the 

foreshadowed CUNs of the Russian Federation are presumably based on more effective usage 

of CFC-113, including recycling, so that total usage declines slowly. 

It is not possible for the CTOC to suggest a faster timetable for the phase out of CFC-113, given 

the magnitude of the task facing the Russian Federation and the relatively late beginning of the 

replacement program, and therefore the CTOC recommends acceptance of the EUN proposed 

for 2008 and 2009. 

However, there seem to be good prospects that CFC-113 of sufficient purity to meet the 

standards and norms of the Russian Federation could be obtained from banks maintained in one 

or more foreign countries that are Parties to the Montreal Protocol and would have an interest in 

(a) minimizing production of this ODS during the period when it is replaced by alternatives in 

the aerospace program of the Russian Federation, and (b) avoiding the cost of storage and 

destruction of this stockpiled material. 

4.5 n-Propyl Bromide Update (XVIII/11, XIII/7) 

4.5.1 Introduction 

The TEAP/CTOC has reported the updates of normal-propyl bromide (n-PB) under decision 

XIII/7 with general information on production, consumption and emissions, as well as toxicity 

data and regulatory actions in the 2005 and 2006 TEAP Progress Reports. In view of the fact 

that this is not a controlled substance, no accurate production and emissions estimates are 

available because there is no yearly reporting by the Parties. 

With these backgrounds, the decision XVIII/11 has requested the TEAP to continue its 

assessment of global emissions of n-PB by obtaining more complete data on its production and 

uses and by providing further information on the technological and economical availability of 

alternatives, to report at the 27th OEWG for the consideration of MOP-19. 
50 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Some information has been provided by two manufacturers of n-PB. For commercial reasons, 

production volumes are not disclosed. It is also known that n-PB is produced by other 

companies but no comprehensive data set is available. 

4.5.2 Updated information on n-PB 

Use of n-PB continues due to its good solvency and relatively low cost, in spite of toxicity 

concerns and pending proposals to reduce exposure guidelines. At this point n-PB is still a 

virtually unregulated chemical. 

The use of n-PB as an intermediate for the synthesis of pharmaceuticals and other organic 

compounds was known for a long time. In the last few years, its uses have grown as a solvent 

for industrial cleaning for degreasing, metal processing and finishing, electronic defluxing and 

other cleaning applications in aerospace and aviation, and the manufacture of medical and 

optical devices. It has also successfully captured some applications in aerosol formulation and 

as a carrier solvent for adhesives, inks and coatings. The use of n-PB is also promoted by the its 

vendors as a substitute for trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene, HCFC-141b and ozone 

depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in many applications. 

It is marketed as n-propyl bromide or 1-bromo propane as well as under many trade names such 

as Leksol, Ensolve, Solvon, Abzol, VDS-3000, Hypersolve, and Lenium. This is not a complete 

list of all trade names under which n-PB and its blends are sold. 

The suggested exposure guidelines have been lowered by most manufacturers and blenders to 

10-25 ppm (except that at least one vendor has kept it as high as 100 ppm). 

n-PB is available in most regions, including Asia, with local productions in China, France, 

Israel, Jordan and the USA. World production capacity for the manufacture of n-PB has 

continued to increase, resulting in a lowering of bulk prices to a level comparable to the upper 

range of chlorinated solvents. The global annual production capacity is estimated to exceed 

20,000 metric tonnes, of which about 5,000 metric tonnes are probably used as a pharmaceutical 

intermediate or process agent. The consumption, as a solvent, increased at a growing rate of 15-

20% per year in USA (5, 000 metric tonnes in 2005), Japan (1,400 metric tonnes in 2005) and 

other Asian countries. In Japan it reached a plateau in 2005 and then has declined to 1,310 

metric tonnes in 2006. In Europe, n-PB use has increased rapidly in metal and precision 

cleaning until 2005 to reach a plateau around 2,000 metric tonnes; since then it is being 

progressively phased out. The global n-PB consumption is estimated to be 10,000 to 20,000 

metric tonnes per year and the corresponding n-PB emissions are calculated to be 5,000 to 

10,000 metric tonnes per year, when 50% of the consumption could be emitted as suggested by 

IPCC/TEAP Special Report (2005). 

4.5.3 Recent Toxicity Data and Proposed Regulatory Actions 

Long term (chronic) testing of n-PB in animals has shown toxicity to the reproductive systems 

of both male and female. In males, it affects sperm counts and motility, testicles and prostrate. 

In females it damages ovaries and results in sterilization. Based on the reproductive toxicity 

data, the Commission of the European Communities has proposed to add n-PB to the list of 

dangerous chemicals that can cause cancer, have mutagenic properties or be toxic to 

reproduction. The Environmental Protection Agency of the USA (US-EPA) has suggested 

exposure guidelines of 25 ppm (www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/regs/68fr33284.pdf). 

n-PB also has significant neurotoxicty to animals and humans. The animal study showed 

significant neurological effects on animals at various dose levels. A recent case study involved 

five workers whose job involved gluing foam cushion with glue containing the solvent n-PB. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 51

Due to the extremely high exposure in excess of 500ppm they developed serious neurological 

symptoms, some of which appear to be permanent.

Based on these recent findings and until more toxicological test data becomes available, the 

American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has recommended that exposure 

guidelines for n-PB containing solvent be limited to 10 ppm. Hazard Evaluation System and 

Information Services (HESIS) of California Department of Health Services have gone a step 

further and have suggested limiting worker exposure to about 1 ppm. Also the Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of California announced on Nov 8, 2004 

its intention to add n-PB to the Proposition 65 list as a chemical known to the State to cause 

reproductive toxicity. So far only one of the n-PB vendors has reduced their recommended 

exposure guidelines to 10 ppm, In Europe, n-PB use has been progressively phased out; its 

labelling reclassification 

• R 11 Highly flammable. 

• R 36/37/38 Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin. 

• R 48/20 Harmful: danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure 

through inhalation. 

• R 60 May impair fertility. 

• R 63 Possible risk of harm to the unborn child. 

• R 67 Vapors may cause drowsiness and dizziness. 

Substitution is not only due to this classification but also to the 1999 VOC-Directive which 

forces the reduction of emissions of volatile organic compounds. 

4.5.4 Latitude-specific ODP of n-PB 

The Scientific Assessment Panel (SAP) 2006 Assessment Report includes the latest estimates of 

the latitude-specific ODPs. The Ozone Depletion Potentials of n-propyl bromide are 0.1 for 

tropical emissions and 0.02-0.03 for emissions restricted to northern mid-latitudes, unchanged 

from the previous assessment. The ODP for n-PB, when used and emitted in the tropics is 

comparable to the ODPs of other substances already controlled by the Montreal Protocol. 

While no consensus has been reached in the scientific community over appropriate models for 

estimating the ODP of short-lived substances such as n-PB, most estimates put the top of the 

range near 0.1, while estimates of the minimum figure range from 0.0033 to approximately 

0.02. It is understood that Professor D. Wuebbles is undertaking an industry-funded study, using 

a new three-dimensional model of its behaviour in the atmosphere. This study is expected to be 

completed by May 2007. 

4.5.5 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 

The 100-year GWP for n-PB is estimated to be 0.31 (Atmospheric and Environmental Research, 

Inc., 1995). To put this figure into context, typical figures for other ODS are: CFC-113, 6000; 

HCFC-141b, 700; chloroform (not a controlled substance), 140. 

4.5.6 Concluding remarks 

The continuing use of n-PB is supported by industry bodies, because it offers an effective 

replacement for solvents with higher ODP and chlorocarbons. However, it is recognised that 

occupational health and safety (OHS) considerations and its ozone depleting potential are 

important factors in dictating the handling of n-PB, specifically the minimisation of worker 

exposure and prevention of release to the environment. Nonetheless, its use in some 

jurisdictions is growing. In other regions, as a result of concern over toxicity and ozone 

depletion, n-PB is being phased out. 

 
52 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

4.6 Sources of carbon tetrachloride (CTC) emissions and opportunities for 

reductions (XVIII/10) 

4.6.1 Introduction 

Following the detailed analyses carried out by TEAP and included in its 2006 report, the Parties 

in Decision XVIII/10 requested TEAP to: 

3. continue its assessment of global emissions of carbon tetrachloride, as set out in 

Decision XVI/14 and other related decisions such as Decision XVII/19, paragraph 

6, paying particular attention to 

4. obtaining better data for industrial emissions such as those from HCFC-22 

production to enable resolution of the significant discrepancy with atmospheric 

measurements; 

5. further investigating issues related to production of carbon tetrachloride (including 

its production as a by-product and subsequent use, storage, recycling or destruction; 

6. estimating emissions from other sources such as landfills. 

7. Prepare a final report on the assessment referred to above in time for the twentyseventh meeting of the Open-ended Working Group for the consideration of the 

Nineteenth Meeting of the Parties in 2007. 

The CTOC can report that this task is not yet complete, partly due to the shortened intersessional period and partly due to difficulties in accessing relevant information. The following 

text is a report of work in progress. 

4.6.2 Information from the Science Assessment Panel 

The Science Assessment Panel in its 2006 Report carried out a thorough analysis of the 

atmospheric concentrations of carbon tetrachloride and concluded that “For CTC the only 

detectable current emissions were from China, but the amount was only a relatively small 

fraction (31%) of the inferred global emissions for a 26 year lifetime. Unfortunately, only 

limited data are available from regions such as Korea and India, which might be responsible 

for significant emissions. There are indications that India in particular is still a source of CTC 

emitted from solvent use and from process agent applications. For example, air from India 

observed at a background site in the Indian Ocean has been found to contain elevated 

concentrations of CTC (Lobert and Harris, 2002). Furthermore, a study in Mumbai (India) fond 

concentrations of CTC those were noticeably above the background (Srivastava et al., 2006).”

(Science Assessment 2006, Section 1.3.1) Furthermore it noted, “Overall the budget of CTC 

remains poorly understood” and it recommended to make “no change from the lifetime of 26 

years given in WMO 2002.” 

India has made substantial efforts to replace CTC, and all process agent applications of CTC 

will have been phased out by the end of 2007 under the Sector Plan. 

4.6.3 Can Landfill emissions of CTC account for the discrepancy? 

A number of recent publications provide relevant information, although emissions of CTC were 

not the main focus of these works. 

A thorough review of the literature of emissions from landfills and the effects of soil cover was 

carried out by Charlotte Scheutz in 2002. This demonstrated that fully substituted hydrocarbons 

(such as tetrachloromethane (CTC)) were not degraded under oxidative conditions. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 53

Furthermore, she noted that “higher chlorinated compounds such as CFCs and CTC were found 

degradable in the anaerobic zone (of landfill soil covers)” Thus, although indicating that CTC 

could be destroyed in landfills or their soil covers, Scheutz's review did reveal the extent to 

which this might occur and did not provide data on emissions from landfills or CTC 

concentrations in nearby air. 

An analysis by Allen et al. of halocarbon emissions from seven landfill sites in the UK indicated 

CTC levels of between 2 and 21 mg m-3 in the sites, whilst work by Emerson on Californian 

landfills indicated that mean concentrations of CTC were comparable, being between 8.0 – 12.8 

ppb (22 detections out of 558 samples). 

In order better to understand the potential emissions of CTC from landfills, the following 

estimate was carried out: 

The Report by IPCC, SRES quotes the release of methane from landfill as 23 million tonnes/yr 

for OECD90 in 1990 and 60 million tonnes/yr globally. Landfill gas, according to the UK 

Environment Agency, is 65% methane by volume, with the rest predominantly CO2. So the total 

landfill gas releases become 57 and 149 million tonnes/yr. 

Estimations by Emerson from California show a mean range up to 12.8 ppb (volume) from only 

4% of the landfill sites. Allen et al.'s results are much higher at 2 mg/m3

, or just under 2 ppm 

weight from 43% of the sites studied. 

Therefore, if it is assumed that all OECD sites release CTC, the product of less than 2 ppm and 

57 million tonnes is 98 tonnes. This would rise to 255 tonnes for global landfill. It is likely to 

arise from seepage of historically dumped chemical and not from material generated within 

landfills. When CTC use was low, there would be correspondingly less CTC in landfills, for 

example in many Article 5 countries. 

These calculations would indicate that there is insufficient concentration of CTC in landfill gas 

to account for the discrepancy between estimated industrial emissions of CTC and 

concentrations measured in the atmosphere. 

Other potential sources could include release from historical chemical dumps and groundwater 

emissions but it is unlikely that such sources could provide sufficient sustained releases to 

account for the discrepancy. The CTOC has collected some data on groundwater contaminated 

with CTC and is seeking evidence of emission to air of CTC contaminated groundwater. It 

should be noted that CTC has water solubility 0.8 g/L at 20o

C and so could be present as dilute 

solutions but may also be transported with groundwater as a separate liquid phase. 

4.6.4 Conclusions on CTC emissions from landfills 

Although it is not possible to draw concrete conclusions from an analysis of the recent literature, 

the indications are that the levels of CTC resulting from emissions from landfills could be of the 

order of a few hundred tonnes per annum in OECD countries. It is highly unlikely that 

emissions from landfills in Article 5 countries would greatly exceed these levels given the 

considerably lower levels of historical CTC use. Our analysis does not determine whether CTC 

emissions are significant from non-landfill solvent disposal sites. 

Furthermore, recent atmospheric measurements by Chan et al. over 45 Chinese cities, in the 

Pearl River Delta, one of the most important manufacturing centres of South China, have 

indicated levels of CTC source 20% above those of the background. This could indicate that 

Chinese/SE Asian emission levels could be higher than previously calculated/measured. It 

should be noted that the papers of Chan et al. report the situation in 2001. It is not known 
54 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

whether or not a similar situation arises for other regions. However, it should be noted that CTC 

levels in the United States have been “virtually undetectable in the regional studies.” (Science 

Assessment 2006, Section 1.3.1) whilst, as reported in 2005, for East Asia (China, Japan and 

Korea), emissions of 21.5 million tonnes/year were found. 

This analysis assists in bridging the gap between measured atmospheric levels of CTC and those 

calculated from current and past emissive uses. Atmospheric levels, according to the Science 

Assessment Panel are declining at a rate of about 1% per year. 

4.6.5 References 

Allen, M.R., Braithwaite, A., Hills, C.C., Environ.Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 1054-61 

Barlette, B., Meinardi, S., Simpson, I.J., Sherwood Rowland, F., Chan, C-Y., Wang, X., Zou, S., 

Chan, L.Y., Blake, D.R., Atm. Env. 2006, 40, 7706-7719 

Chan, C.Y., Tang, J.H., Li, Y.S., Chan, L.Y., Atm. Env. 2006, 40, 7331-7345 

Emerson, C.W., Environ. Mgement;, 1999, 57, 155-164 

Scheutz, C, Ph.D Thesis, September 2002, Technical University, Denmark 

4.7 Laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide (XVII/10) 

 

Extensive information on laboratory and analytical uses of ODS and especially methyl bromide 

(MB) was provided in the 2006 TEAP Report (Section 6.4, pages 69-73), following which 

decision XVIII/15 clarified the permitted laboratory and analytical uses of methyl bromide. 

 

Since decision XVII/10(8) asked the TEAP to report in 2007 and every other year thereafter on 

the development and availability of laboratory and analytical procedures that can be performed 

without using the controlled substances in Annex E of the Protocol, the CTOC considered this 

matter early in 2007 but was unable to provide any new information. The possibilities for and 

actualities of such replacements are kept under review by the CTOC, with a view to providing 

relevant information in future Progress Reports. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 55

5 Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC) 

The 2006 Foam Assessment Report has provided an important overview of the progress made 

in ODS management and phase-out over the last four year period and has reflected the status 

in the areas of: 

• Transition from ODSs to non-ODS alternatives in many developed countries 

• Transitions from CFCs to non-CFC alternatives in developing countries 

• Barriers to transition in both instances 

• Analysis and validation of banked blowing agent quantities and a review of current 

end-of-life practices 

Leading on from this overview, a number of issues covered in that report have grown in 

relevance since the Foams Assessment Report’s publication. These are addressed briefly in 

sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 below. 

5.1 Comprehensive Environmental Assessment of Alternatives 

As the focus of the evaluation of alternatives has broadened to include other environmental 

impacts, factors such as life cycle climate performance (LCCP) are being proposed as means 

of assessing alternative technologies. Whilst this is a legitimate approach, care needs to be 

taken in applying such analysis to foams, since the LCCP for a foam or, indeed, any other 

thermal insulation type is much more related to its specific application than to the 

characteristics of the product itself. Other factors also need to be considered, such as the basis 

for comparison (e.g. constant thermal performance vs. constant thickness) and end-of-life 

management assumptions. 

The Foams TOC would therefore caution against the use of LCCP as a way of delineating 

alternatives when the specific applications are not described. 

5.2 Voluntary Carbon Projects 

Chapter 3 of the Foam Assessment Report contained a short section (pages 63-64) on the 

possible role of voluntary carbon projects in facilitating the recovery of banked ODS from 

installed foams at end-of-life. This agenda is continuing to develop and the approach would 

alleviate the problems in trying to legislate for the recovery and destruction of blowing agents 

from foams in buildings where some foams would be technically unrecoverable, while others 

might be technically recoverable but the processes to do so might be uneconomic. 

Recent interest from a number of reputable voluntary carbon project developers (e.g. Climate 

Care) has only served to clarify the need for appropriate protocols to assess and verify the 

ODS and climate benefits of recovery projects. This matter is likely to be addressed further in 

the response to Decision XVIII/12. 

5.3 Global Warming Potentials of non-methane hydrocarbons 

As part of the overall environmental assessment of alternatives, there is a continuing need to 

identify referenced sources of information on the global warming potentials (GWPs) of 

commonly used blowing agents. These include cyclo-pentane, iso-butane, n-pentane and isopentane. Although some data on radiative forcing exists, the Foams Technical Options 

Committee continues to work with experts on the Science Assessment Panel and elsewhere to 

select atmospheric lifetimes that are appropriate for the estimation of representative GWPs. 
56 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

This issue is becoming particularly pertinent because several “green building” schemes are 

using the GWP of blowing agents as an assessment criterion for products, rather than 

adopting the more comprehensive life cycle climate performance (LCCP) approach. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 57

6 Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Progress 

Report 

The HTOC does not plan to meet in 2007 unless tasks arise from the OEWG-27 or MOP-19. 

6.1 Update on Decision XV/11 

As reported at MOP-18, serious delays in the joint HTOC/International Civil Aviation 

Organisation (ICAO) action plan occurred because of the retirement of the ICAO focal point. 

This resulted in the planned ICAO State letter - inviting States to require, where possible, the 

use of proven alternatives to halons in new aircraft designs - not being issued in 2006 and 

also stalled the plan for the ICAO Secretariat to introduce an ICAO/HTOC working paper on 

halon phase-out at the 36th ICAO Assembly Session in 2007. At the request of the Parties, 

and in cooperation with the HTOC, the Ozone Executive Secretary met with the ICAO 

Secretary General in March 2007, and received assurances that the ICAO/HTOC working 

paper would be introduced at the 36th ICAO Assembly Session in September, 2007 during 

the agenda item for Other Technical Matters. ICAO will provide the format for the working 

paper, which the HTOC has now been tasked with preparing. 

6.2 Implementation challenges in Article 5 countries 

The South African Halon Bank has reported problems in getting access to the regional halon 

recycling machine provided by a UNDP regional project. The Bank operators would like to 

move the machine to an approved site and begin recycling accumulated halon. 

6.3 Halon-2402 Phase-out 

India continues to report difficulties in obtaining halon-2402 for the servicing of critical 

equipment. 

6.4 Halon-1211 Bank 

HTOC members continue to report that large quantities of halon-1211 that can no longer be 

used in China are accumulating within China. 

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 59

7 Refriegeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical 

Options Committee (RTOC) Progress Report 

The authors of the various chapters of the RTOC have not issued detailed reports on technical 

progress following the information that was reported in the 2006 RTOC Assessment Report 

just two months ago, although developments are continuing in increasing energy efficiency 

and reducing refrigerant consumption in many sub-sectors. New low-GWP refrigerants have 

been announced. 

Generally speaking, the change from CFCs to non-CFCs in refrigeration AC and heat pumps 

has virtually been completed globally. However, servicing with CFCs still remains an issue 

of importance in Article 5 countries. Whilst the use of HCFC-22 for new equipment was 

halted in the EU several years ago and will be halted in the USA shortly, the use of HCFC-22 

for new air conditioning and refrigeration (in particular commercial refrigeration) equipment 

is growing rapidly in many Article 5 countries. 

Rapid development of low-GWP responses to the EU F-Gas directive for MACs is 

proceeding. Designations were recommended for five new refrigerant blends to replace HFC134a in January 2007. To meet the EU F-gas directive for MACs, at least one additional 

manufacturer has begun focused research on low-GWP replacements for HFC-134a in 

automotive use and potentially for stationary air conditioning and refrigeration as well. At the 

end of March, two refrigerant manufacturers announced a global joint development agreement 

to accelerate the development and commercialisation of a next generation, low global 

warming refrigerant (GWP<150, ITH 100 years) for the automotive air conditioning industry 

(which are assumed to be more energy efficient than CO2 based air conditioning systems, 

particularly at high ambient air temperature conditions). Refrigerant manufacturing 

companies have announced to work closely with the automotive industry to qualify a low 

GWP alternative by mid-2007. Announcements so far have not indicated whether the new 

low-GWP refrigerants are also suitable to replace HFC-134a or other HFC-134a based blends 

in different refrigeration and air conditioning applications. 

The initiatives underway will have significant impacts and will reduce current uncertainty as 

to which solution will emerge as the ultimate choice for HFC-134a. This may impact not 

only the automotive sector but all stationary refrigeration and AC sectors as well. 

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 61

8 Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 

Progress Report 

8.1 MBTOC Soils Progress Report 

8.1.1 Scope of the Report 

The MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report has been recently published and is accessible at the 

Ozone Secretariat website (www.unep.org/ozone). The Assessment contains a thorough 

analysis on the technical and economic feasibility of alternatives to replace methyl bromide, 

on the commercial adoption of alternatives and potential alternative treatments to MB as a soil 

fumigant. It also shows trends in methyl bromide production and consumption in both Article 

5 and non-Article 5 Parties; estimated levels of emissions of MB to the atmosphere, and 

strategies to reduce those emissions. In addition, the report describes critical uses of MB that 

have been approved by the Parties for 2005 onwards and a review of economic issues relating 

to MB phase-out. 

In light of the above, this progress report gives a short update of research findings, 

registration and adoption of alternatives occurring after publication of the MBTOC 2006 

Assessment Report. 

8.1.2 Chemical alternatives for soil fumigation 

The major alternatives, such as 1,3-D/Pic (Telone C35), chloropicrin (Pic) and metham 

sodium (MS), used alone or in combination with other alternatives continue to be widely 

adopted as key alternatives in most preplant soil applications. Recent research publications 

confirm that the crop yields and level of control achieved for target pests is comparable to that 

of MB, for example: 

• Recent trials in Florida and Spain comparing three key alternatives in strawberry fruit 

crops for example, have shown that 1,3-D/Pic, Pic alone and di-methyl disulphide 

(DMDS) combined with Pic gave yields that did not differ from MB/Pic (Santos et al, 

2007). Large scale validation trials with 1,3-D/Pic in conjunction with herbicides (e.g. 

trifluralin) confirmed that this combination is as effective in tomatoes as MB/Pic (67:33) 

for controlling Cyperus (nutsedge) and nematodes (Gilreath et al., 2006). In late 2006 a 

review article on alternatives research in SE USA, concluded that specific combinations 

of treatments (1,3-D, Pic, metham, dazomet, herbicides or LPBF, also methyl iodide, 

DMDS) provided effective control against most soil-borne diseases and nematodes, 

assuming that correct application methods and rates are used. However, in situations 

where Cyperus infestations are severe, alternative fumigants could be combined with 

herbicides to minimize weed interference (Santos and Gilreath, 2006). 

• In studies on forest nursery production of pine seedlings, chloropicrin and metham 

sodium/chloropicrin are proving effective alternatives to methyl bromide for reducing 

soil-borne fungi and nematodes, but the effectiveness of chloropicrin for nutsedge control 

may be affected by soil type (Cram et al, 2007, South 2007). 

• In Calla lily soils, propagules of nutsedge were controlled by a range of alternatives, some 

previously considered ineffective against nutsedge. These included Pic, 1,3-D/Pic, 1,3-D 

alone, Chloropicrin, furfural and metham sodium (Gerik, 2006). 

• Trials on cucurbit rotations in SE USA have shown that combinations of chisel injected 

fumigants (MB, 1,3-D, metham sodium and chloropicrin) on a first crop followed by drip 

irrigation (MS, 1,3-D and Pic) on the second crop, with and without a nematicide 

treatment (oxamyl), provided good nematode control and increased yields to the same 

level as MB (Desaeger and Csinos, 2006) 
62 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

• The University of Florida extension service, USA has recently developed 

recommendations for growers on MB alternative treatments for strawberry, tomato, 

eggplant and pepper, based on TC35 + VIF + herbicides (Noling et al., 2006) 

• Transition strategies based on the use of formulations of MB/Pic with lower 

concentrations of MB (i.e. 50:50 or 30:70) continue to provide an effective means to 

reduce dosage rates, especially in combination with barrier films (Gilreath et al., 2006, 

Santos et al., 2006). 

8.1.3 Update on registration status of MB and chemical alternatives 

• MB, Pic, 1,3-D and many other pesticides are under review in the USA and EC. A 

technical assessment of MB’s toxicological characteristics for the EC review found that 

MB did not meet many of the critiera necessary for approval as a pesticide in plant 

protection products under EC Directive 91/414/EEC (EFSA, 2006), and as a result it is 

expected that MB will be taken off the market in the EC next year or soon afterwards. 

Concern still exists about the future registration status in the US and EC of several key 

alternatives, Pic and 1,3-D which have helped to replace MB in specific regions and 

sectors, such as strawberry fruit in California, USA, and Spain. 

• A permit for use of methyl iodide, a major potential alternatives to MB, has recently been 

approved in the United States and Australia and registration is pending. 

• A number of other chemicals are now in the registration process in specific countries, 

including dimethyl disulphide (DMDS) in Europe and US (for cantaloupe, cucumber, 

squash, other cucurbits, peppers, strawberry, tomato) and Europe, ethane dinitrile (EDN) 

in Australia, dazomet in the US (for strawberry and tomato), and various herbicides. 

8.1.4 Emissions reduction of chemical alternatives 

• Recent studies by Ou et al., 2007, have confirmed that barrier films can dramatically 

reduce emissions from strip treated beds. The reduction is dependent on application rate, 

injection depth of MB and bed temperature and was greatest with the higher rate of MB 

applied at 396 kg/ha (39.9 g/m2

) than when applied at 196 kg/ha (19.6 g/m2). 

• Metham sodium efficacy could be improved by replacing standard LDPE films with 

barrier films (Ou et al., 2006). 

• Fumigant emissions of MITC and Pic in forest soils are considered to be more efficiently 

controlled by use of plastic tarps, than water seals although both are effective methods to 

reduce emissions and consequently improve effectiveness of the fumigants (Wang et al., 

2005, 2006). 

• Barrier films in combination with lower MB/Pic formulations (eg 50:50) are improving 

the efficacy of weed control, including Cyperus. Studies are also indicating their use for 

effective dosage reduction of alternatives, such as 1,3D and Pic (Austerweil et al., 2006; 

Ou et al., 2006, MBTOC 2007). This is important because dosage reduction may 

increase the potential application area where present restrictions exist (e.g. township caps 

in the US) and possibly reduce the buffer zone requirements in some countries where 

fumigant emission studies have been conducted previously without films or with standard 

fumigation films. 

• In the absence of available alternatives, full implementation of barrier films (VIF or semi 

permeable LPBF) is the quickest means to reduce use and emissions of MB in the soils 

sector for the remaining uses of MB in both non A5 and A5 countries. MBTOC estimates 

that complete use of barrier films on the remaining preplant uses of MB worldwide has 

the potential to reduce dosage rates of MB and subsequent emissions of methyl bromide 

by approximately 6,000 ODP tonnes compared to the current practice using standard 

polyethylene films. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 63

8.1.5 Non chemical alternatives in the soil sector 

Chemical fumigant alternatives in general, like MB, have issues related to their long-term 

suitability for use. As mentioned above, in the EC and US, MB and most other fumigants are 

subject to a rigorous review that could affect future regulations over their use. Thus, 

consideration of sustainable, long –term alternatives and IPM programs which include nonchemical options is particularly important. Methods which avoid the use of MB, such as 

substrate production, grafting and resistant varieties, have gained wider adoption in the 

horticulture sector in particular. Recent research on these topics is available, for example: 

• New resistant varieties against nematodes (Meloidogyne sp.) and resistant rootstocks for 

grafting peppers and tomatoes which may assist offset use of fumigants have been found 

in studies in Spain (Piedra Buena et al., 2006, Lopez-Perez et al., 2006). 

• The use of grafted plants (combined with other relevant treatments) has continued to 

increase as a MB alternative in tomato, eggplant, melon, zucchini and other vegetable 

crops in Mediterranean countries, for example in Italy (Morra and Bilotto, 2005). 

• The use of low-cost substrates for protected vegetables, strawberries and flowers has 

increased in both A5 and non-A5 countries, and also for open field crops in certain 

situations (e.g. Mutitu et al. 2006ab, Mukunya et al. 2006, Vos and Bridge, 2006, 

• The combination of solarisation and Trichoderma significantly reduced soil populations 

of Phytophthora cactorum in strawberry fields and has been successful in areas never 

subjected to MB fumigation before (Porras et al., 2007). 

• Solarisation is also being used as a promising alternative for treatment of fungal 

pathogens in flower crops in the US (McSorley et al, 2006). 

• Advances in other non-chemical techniques continue to be made and need to be 

considered in any integrated program to control soilborne diseases. A recent study by 

Runia et al., (2007), for example, presents an integrated program that has proven effective 

for managing fungi and nematodes affecting strawberry runners in The Netherlands. 

8.1.6 References 

Austerweil M., Steiner B., Gamliel A. (2006) Permeation of soil fumigants through agricultural plastic 

films. Phytoparasitica, 34 (5), 491-501. 

Cram, M.M., Enebak, S.A., Fraedrich, S. W., Dwinell, L.W. and Zarnoch, S.J. (2007). Evaluation of 

Fumigants, EPTC Herbicide, and Paenibacillus macerans in the Production of Loblolly 

Pine Seedlings. Forest Science 53(1):73– 83. 

EFSA 2006. DAR Assessment Report. Initial Risk Assessment Provided by the Member State 

Rapporteur for the Existing Active Substance Methyl Bromide of the Third Stage (part 

A) of the Review Programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 

91/414/EEC, following quality review by the EFSA Pesticides Risk Assessment Peer 

Review (PRAPeR). Volumes 1 – 3(B1-B9). European Food Safety Authority. 

Gerik, J.S., Greene, I.D., Beckman, P. and Elmore, C.L. (2006). Preplant drip-applied fumigation for 

calla lily rhizome nursery. HorTechnology 16(2): 297 – 300 

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Busacca, J.B., Eger. J.B., Mirusso, J.B. and Gilreath, P. (2006). Validating 

broadcast application ofTelone C-35 complemented with hloropicrin and herbicides in 

commercial tomato farms. Crop Protection 25: 79–82 

Desaeger J. A. and Csinos A. S. (2006). Root-knot nematode management in double-cropped 

plasticulture vegetables. Journal of Nematology 38(1): 59 - 67 

López-Pérez, J.A.,Le Strange, M., Kaloshian, I., Ploeg, A.T. (2006). Differential response of Mi generesistant tomato rootstocks to root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne incognita) Crop 

Protection 25: 382–388 

MBTOC, 2007. (2006) Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 

UNEP, Nairobi 482 pp. 

McSorley, R., K.H. Wang and N. Kokallis-Burelle. (2006). Solarization as an alternative to Methyl 

Bromide in Florida floriculture. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 6-9, 2006 Orlando, Florida, 

USA 
64 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Morra, L. and Bilotto, M. (2005) Innesto erbaceo in orticoltura,espansione a due velocità. 

L’Informatore Agrario. 45: 33-37 

Mukunya, D.M., Mutitu, E.W., Musembi, N., Waswa, R. and Mutero, J. (2006). Viable alternatives to 

methyl bromide that have been promoted for use in Kenya for cut flower and vegetable 

cultivation. Stakeholders Workshop, 21 February 2006. GOK-GTZ-UNDP MB 

Alternatives Project, Nairobi. 

Mutitu, E., Waswa, R., Musembi, N., Chepsoi, J., Mutero, J. and Barel, M. (2006a). Use of methyl 

bromide alternatives in small scale vegetable sector in Kenya. Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives Project – Kenya. GOK-GTZ-UNDP project. Nairobi 

Mutitu, E., Waswa, R., Musembi, N., and Barel, M. (2006b). Substrates for vegetable production in 

Kenya. 

Noling, J.W., Gilreath, J.P. and Botts, D.A. (2006). Chapter 23 In: Alternatives to methyl bromide soil 

fumigation for Florida vegetable production. In: Olson, SM. et al. 2006. Vegetable 

Production Handbook for Florida. University of Florida, Institute of Food and 

Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) Extension. 

Piedra Buena, A., López-Pérez, J.A., Bello, A., Díez-Rojo, M.A., Robertson, L., Escuer, M. and de 

León, L. (2006). Screening of cuarentino pepper (Capsiucum capsicumannuum L.) for 

resistance to Meloidogybe incognita. Nematropica 36(1): 13 – 24. 

Porras, M., C. Barrau, F.T. Arroyo, B. Santos, C. Blanco, and F. Romero. (2007). Reduction of 

Phytophthora cactorum in strawberry fields by Trichoderma spp. and soil solarization. 

Plant Disease 91:142-146. 

Runia, W.T., Molendijk, L.P.G. and Evenhuis, B. (2007). Desk study on efficacy of alternatives to 

methyl bromide against soliborne fungi and plant parasitic nematodes in strawberry 

runners. Applied Plant Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 47 pp. 

Santos, B.M. and Gilreath, J.P. (2006). Chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for vegetable crop 

production in Florida, United States CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, 

Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 2006 1, No. 057 

Santos, B.M., Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., von Hulten, M. and Siham1, M.N. (2006). Effects of mulch 

types and concentrations of 1,3-Dichloropropene plus chloropicrin on fumigant retention 

and nutsedge control. HorTechnology 16(4):1-4 

Santos,B.M., Gilreath, J.P., López-Aranda, J.M., Miranda, L., Soria, C. Nad Medina, J.J. (2007). 

Comparing Methyl Bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Journal of 

Agronomy 6)1: 225 - 227 

South, D. (2007). Chloropicrin as a Soil Fumigation Treatment in Southern Pine Nurseries. Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry 31(1): 47 – 51 

Vos, J, and Bridge, J. (eds.) (2006). Cases of methyl bromide alternatives used in commercial practice. 

CAB International. 

Wang, D, Juzwik, J, Fraedrich, SW, Spokas, K, Zhang, Y and Koskinen, WC. (2005). Atmospheric 

emissions of methyl isothiocyanate and chloropicrin following soil fumigation and 

surface containment treatment in bare-root forest nurseries. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 35: 1202–1212 

Wang, D., Fraedrich, S.W., Juzwik, J., Spokas, K., Zhang, Y. and Koskinen, W.C. (2006). Fumigant 

distribution in forest nursery soils under water seal and plastic film after application of 

dazomet, metam-sodium and chloropicrin. Pest Management Science 62(3): 263 - 273 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 65

8.2 MBTOC Quarantine Structures and Commodities Progress Report 

8.2.1 Introduction 

The MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report was placed on the web in March 2007. Since that 

extensive report included most of the information normally included in a MBTOC Progress 

Report, this year the Progress Report will only discusses new matters or important highlights. 

The reader is referred to the MBTOC 2006 Assessment Report for further information on 

methyl bromide and alternatives, including Quarantine and Pre-shipment (QPS) uses (UNEP, 

2007). 

8.2.2 Registration Status of Methyl Bromide Alternatives used for QSC Applications 

The registration news for alternatives for quarantine, structural and commodity alternatives is 

mixed. Several countries are reviewing the use of methyl bromide as part of its registration or 

re-registration processes. For example, both the European Union and the US are in process of 

reviewing registration of MB. The proposed regulations indicate additional restrictions on its 

use, beyond the production and consumption restrictions of the Montreal Protocol. In the US, 

there is a draft regulatory proposal available for public comment on the website of the US 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/methyl_bromide/index.htm). 

While progress is being made on the registration of some alternatives, in other cases, the 

deregistration of alternatives may increase pressure to retain the continued use of methyl 

bromide or even revert to methyl bromide. It is for this reason that MBTOC QSC encourages 

Parties and CUN applicants to consider the long term sustainability of the alternatives 

adopted. 

For quarantine, where the use of MB has increased in some sectors, particularly in the 

treatment of timber and wood packaging, some progress has been made on alternatives. In 

Japan, sulfuryl fluoride (SF) plus methyl isothioscyanate (MITC) and methyl iodide (MI) 

have been registered for the treatment of timber and packaging materials for products 

intended for import to Japan. The Japanese government submitted these treatments for 

consideration for inclusion in ISPM 15 (IPPC 2006) standard for quarantine treatments of 

wooden packaging materials. This standard is currently a major impetus for increasing 

consumption of QPS methyl bromide. 

In the US, a generic dose for the use of irradiation as a quarantine treatment is now allowed 

for any fruit and vegetable infested with class Insecta but not if infested with pupae or adults 

of Lepidoptera. The broad approval of the irradiation treatment for all fruits and vegetables 

represents a paradigm shift in the approval of quarantine treatments, since normally 

quarantine treatments are approved only on a specific product and pest basis. Countries 

wishing to use this treatment have to establish framework equivalency and inspection 

agreements with the US. Several countries are developing these agreements to allow greater 

expansion of their exports into the US. 

In the European Union, following support by the Czech Republic, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) 

continues to be permitted for biocide use. HCN has been used in Singapore and several EU 

countries for the treatment of pests on aircraft and ships. HCN continues to be used as a 

disinfestant for both perishable and durable commodities in New Zealand, Japan and several 

other Asian countries 
66 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

In the European Community, MB is included in review programmes under two major pieces 

of legislation (EC Directives) relating to the authorisation of pesticides in plant protection 

products and biocidal products available in the 27 countries of the EC. 

(a) The EC Plant Protection Products Directive (PPPD, 91/414/EEC) covers MB used in 

pesticide products which aim to protect plants, mainly for soil fumigation and postharvest treatments of plant products. A dossier covering MB’s toxicological 

characteristics and risks has undergone a technical assessment according to the PPPD 

criteria (EFSA 2006). The technical assessment noted that MB is highly toxic and 

mutagenic and identified a number of areas where MB does not meet the requirements for 

approval under Directive 91/414/EEC. The report calculated that the operator exposure 

level (Acceptable Air Concentration, 7 hour repeated) should be 0.08ppm instead of the 

current level of about 1ppm. The assessment estimated that consumers could exceed (by 

7-30 times) the Acceptable Daily Intake of methyl bromide residue in food, and 

considered that the consumer risks were unacceptable. It noted that MB residues were 

expected to exceed the EC regulatory limit on residues in drinking water (<0.1 μg/l) and 

that fish mortalities had occurred in drainage water following MB soil fumigation. The 

report also listed areas where necessary technical data had not been provided by the 

registrants (EFSA 2006). The technical assessment has undergone several stages of 

review to date and is in the pipeline for regulatory decision-making, which may take place 

in 2007. Since the technical assessment found that MB did not meet the criteria under 

91/414/EEC, the expected end result is that plant protection products containing MB will 

be taken off the market in all EC countries in the next year or so. 

(b) The EC Biocides Directive (98/8/EC) covers MB’s use as a biocide product in processed 

food facilities, stores of cheese, meat and other non-plant products, use of MB as a 

rodenticide for public health purposes, and other uses that are not related to the protection 

of plants. MB was officially ‘identified’ as a biocidal active substance under Regulation 

2032/2003 and as a result biocidal products containing MB had to be taken off the market 

in all EC countries by 1 September 2006. Also from 1 September 2006 any stockpiles of 

MB biocide products were not allowed to be sold or stored but must be disposed of (HSE 

2006). Several requests were made for specific ‘essential use’ exemptions from this 

biocide product phase-out date (as permitted under Regulation 2032/2003) but no 

exemptions have been approved by the regulatory authorities to date. 

The EC pesticide legislation and the ODS legislation exist side by side, so any restrictions on 

MB made under either piece of legislation have to be respected under EC law. Consequently, 

for example, the use of MB for cheese stores in the UK was not permitted after 1 September 

2006 under the Biocides Directive, even though a Critical Use Exemption was authorised for 

cheese stores in the UK under the Montreal Protocol and EC ODS legislation (Arash 2005). 

Likewise, any future Critical Use Exemptions authorised under the EC ODS legislation can 

only be used until the date that MB is taken off the market under the Plant Protection Products 

Directive. 

For the registration of structural alternatives, sulfuryl fluoride has achieved conditional 

registration for empty mills and food processing facilities in Canada. This registration allows 

for government supervised full site trials as a means to generate efficacy data. Additionally, a 

supplier of SF, has applied for SF registration in Thailand for commodities. 

In the EU, new maximum residue limit of 0.01 ppm for dichlorvos have been announced. 

This will essentially remove the use of dichlorvos for mill and commodity treatment, 

including rapid disinfestations of grain at time of shipment. Use of dichlorvos, where 

permitted by regulation, resistance status and market preference, presents a potential 

alternative to methyl bromide for rapid disinfestation of bulk grain at time of export. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 67

For commodity treatment, progress continues on the registration and deployment of fasteracting, cylinderised gas or generated forms of phosphine. Phosphine is the most widely used 

alternative treatment for commodities, but its slower action against pests limits its use in some 

specific circumstances. Most solid phosphine-generating formulations require time for 

evolution of the gas, but gas supplied in cylinders or by generators can reduce the time for 

treatment somewhat, with actual savings depending on environmental conditions, commodity 

and pest species. Additionally, some solid phosphine-generating formulations may also 

generate ammonia, which has limited its use for some commodities, particularly perishables. 

Registration for cylinderised phosphine has been applied for in Philippines and is in place in 

several other Article 5 countries. 

Use of the organophosphate insecticide, pirimiphos-methyl, for commodity treatment is under 

review in the EU. It was used on its own or as a component of Integrated Pest Management 

(IPM) treatment of commodity and surface treatment in grain storage and for structural 

treatment in some food processing areas. 

8.2.3 Update on Alternatives for Post-harvest and Structural Treatments 

IPM practices are a necessary part of any modern pest control system that intends to reduce 

chemical use, including use of methyl bromide, and particularly toxic residues in foodstuffs. 

A possible biological antagonist or biocontrol agent has been identified for nearly all insect 

pest species infesting durable stored products (e.g. stored grains). Agents include various 

parasitic wasps, various insect predators and even microbiological pathogens. Intensive 

research has been carried out on the biology and orientation of the antagonists and their 

suitability for use instead of chemical products. Lepidopterous pests, such as Indianmeal moth 

(Plodia interpunctella) and the moths of the Ephestia group, can be controlled very 

effectively by use of parasitic wasps that attack eggs, larvae or pupae. Control of weevils and 

other beetles is more difficult, but strategies are being developed for these pests as well, and 

some are already in place. Certainly, biological control methods do not fully replace all 

chemicals in all situations but there are many appropriate circumstances where they do. Many 

suitable agents, e.g. Bracon hebator, are now available commercially in some countries. 

Similar considerations apply for physical control. Heat, cold, controlled atmosphere, 

irradiation and mechanical shock have been established as alternative approaches in various 

niches of the protection of stored and perishable products and these methods are slowly 

gaining more economic importance. The successful disinfestation of empty structures such as 

mills and food processing facilities with heat of about 55°C for 24 h represents a good 

example of the growing adoption of physical processes. 

8.2.3.1 Update on Quarantine Issues 

Within the last year, potato cyst nematode has been discovered in Idaho, US, a major potatogrowing region. Work by state and Federal officials is in process of defining the geographical 

limits of this quarantined pest. The pest appears to be localized to a small area and relatively 

few potato fields. An eradication program is under consideration, based at least in part on use 

of MB fumigation over a period of several years (Vick, K. pers. comm.) 

Timber Fumigation 

There is little data available on the relative performance of various approved and potential 

alternatives for methyl bromide for ISPM 15. Several are currently under consideration. Ren 

(2006 and pers. comm.) found that sulphuryl fluoride, cyanogen, phosphine and carbonyl 

sulphide all had superior penetration to methyl bromide along the grain of dry pine timber 

(Table 8.1). 
68 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Table 8.1 Relative penetration of potential alternatives to methyl bromide through dry pine 

(along the grain) (Ren, Y. L., pers. comm.) 

Sample 

Location 

(distance 

from ends) 

Exposure time Concentration x time (ct) products (g h m-3) relative to methyl 

bromide 

(cm) (hours) MB PH3 SF C2N2 COS 

Headspace 8 

24 

273 

700 

1.5 

1.7 

1.3 

1.5 

0.8 

0.8 

0.9 

0.8 

5 8 

24 

109 

405 

3.2 

2.7 

2.2 

1.9 

1.7 

1.3 

1.1 

1.1 

10 8 

24 

60 

283 

5 

3.5 

3 

2.7 

2.9 

1.8 

1.1 

1.0 

15 8 

24 

14 

76 

18 

13 

10 

9 

12 

6.7 

2.9 

3.2 

Test wood: ‘Oregon’, 10cm×10cm×30cm, moisture content 7.8%, temperature 25C, initial dosages 50 

g m-3, except phosphine (1 g m-3). Figures in italics scaled to methyl bromide values. 

Controlled Atmospheres 

Since MBTOC’s Assessment report in 2002, knowledge about and commercial adoption of 

controlled atmosphere treatment has grown considerably. 

Bell and Conyers (2003) noted that modified atmospheres have the potential to kill all pests 

but require supplementary measures to increase their speed of action. Raised pressure or 

temperature can each shorten treatment times to those used in methyl bromide container 

fumigations. Their work concluded that tests at raised temperatures on a range of 

commodities have shown no unacceptable quality or shelf life effects from exposures up to 6 

days at temperatures up to 45 to 55o

C. One of the more susceptible commodities to heating 

was dried apricots, but even for these a temperature limit of 45o

C was identified over a 4-day 

exposure in a low oxygen atmosphere. Rice was unaffected by exposure at 55o

C for 6 days. 

Neven (2006) and Mitcham (2006) summarized many years of research done to develop 

controlled atmosphere temperature treatment system (CATTS) and adjusting CA equipment 

for the development of CA treatments for apples and cherries. Collaborating with Guy 

Hallman USDA – Agriculture Research Service in Weslaco Texas, they developed treatments 

for codling moth, oriental fruit moth, plum curculio and western fruit fly, and learned how to 

avoid product quality problems that were associated with both the high temperature and high 

CO2 conditions needed for pest control. Treatments were developed for cherries, apples, 

pears, peaches, nectarines, apricots. Neven reported that fruit quality is better than when MB 

fumigation is used. The methods developed for apples and pears were approved for quarantine 

treatment by USDA APHIS and will be raised at bilateral meetings with importers. 

However, it must be noted that the development of CA treatments for perishable foods is 

difficult and the work in this field is not fully conclusive. Brown (2006), working in Tasmania 

reported the development of quarantine treatments for stored apples for shipment to Japan. 

Their treatment which involves temperature tempering of the cold-stored fruit before the 

CATTS treatment, while technically effective, was still reported to require improvements to 

decrease the incidence of product browning and to improve economic viability. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 69

An improved understanding of the combination of temperature with controlled atmosphere on 

pest efficacy and product quality contributed to development of commercial systems with 

faster heat-up times and improved methods for the generation of the controlled atmospheres. 

Controlled atmosphere (CA) treatments are far more competitive than a few years ago. 

Barriers of treatment time, price, usability and availability have been lowered. A Netherlands 

based company has installed controlled atmosphere chambers, operated on a product lease 

basis, in several locations in the world. There are treatment centres in The Netherlands, 

Belgium, United Kingdom, Turkey, Greece, Vietnam and India (Vroom, 2006). Controlled 

atmosphere treatments, sometimes combined with supplementary heating, are in use for pest 

control for a wide variety of durable commodities, including spices, grains and cereals, 

pulses, dried fruit, seeds and cocoa beans. One company has installed capacity for CA 

treatments exceeding 400,000 tonnes of commodity annually (Bergweff, F. pers. comm.) 

Irradiation 

Following the publication of a generic approach to using irradiation as a quarantine 

disinfestation treatment for fruits and vegetables, the US announced an irradiation treatment 

agreement to allow the import of irradiated Indian mango that have been treated at a 

minimum dose of 400 Gy, have a phytosanitary certificate, and following inspection of the 

fruit and orchards at time of harvest. Fruit found to be infected by fungi or bacteria of 

medium risk quarantine concern will also be treated with anti-fungal dips (Federal Register, 

March 12, 2007) 

Systems Approach 

Systems approaches involve numerous measures to reduce or eliminate pests or pest pressure, 

throughout growing, harvest, packing shipping, etc, with the result that pest control can be 

assured without treatment, or through the use of less damaging treatments. Systems 

approaches are among the most difficult quarantine treatments to achieve, because they are 

specific to one particular region; each step in the system must be quantified and the end result 

of the extent of quarantine security is the same as with fumigation. A systems approach 

requires a much deeper knowledge of the pest(s), its conditions for growth and development, 

the local environmental conditions and how to mitigate pests usually without post-harvest 

fumigation. Several systems approaches are in place as quarantine measures; the two 

reviewed below have newly come to MBTOC’s attention. 

Johnson (2006), working with one of the most important perishable crops exported to Japan, 

fresh cherries, reported on a project resulting from the finding of cherries infested with 

codling moth by Japanese inspectors. Codling moth is a quarantine pest whose presence or 

possible presence results in fumigation by several importing countries. Johnson’s work 

involved the harvesting of 10,000 cherries from each of 10 cherry orchards located near 

orchards of apple and pear (known to be good hosts for codling moth). Following inspection 

of the harvested cherries, Johnson concluded that cherries are not a host of codling moth, and 

a systems approach that included monitoring and the use of pheromone traps should provide 

sufficient control. The system approach is now being negotiated with Japan for possible use 

on cherry exports to Japan. Japan has previously negotiated a systems approach for cherries 

for New Zealand. 

Leach (2006) outlined how systems approaches are used in combination with irradiation as a 

quarantine treatment for fruit from Queensland to New Zealand. When a systems approach is 

used to ensure that peach moth does not infest the fruit in the field, a lower dosage rate 

treatment of irradiation (150 Gy) can be used for quarantine with resulting savings and 

improved fruit quality. 
70 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

8.2.3.2 New Potential Alternatives for Difficult MB Use Situations 

In its reports, MBTOC has noted that alternatives to control pests of cheese in storage and 

ham in ham houses have not been found. There are two main difficulties in obtaining effective 

alternatives for these uses: the pests of concern are mites, which are more difficult to control; 

because the pests infest the food itself it is difficult to obtain registration for treatments. 

However, recently two papers have been submitted for publication proposing possible 

alternatives for control of mites in cheese and ham. 

Sanchez-Ramos and Castanera (in press), have examined mite development at low 

temperatures finding that 7 ̊C stops development of mites and does not adversely affect the 

cheese. Cheese is typically stored at just slightly higher temperatures (around 10 ̊C), and 

therefore lowering cheese storage temperature may be a good mite control option. 

Mites are also the main, but not the only, pest of concern in the production of cured pork in 

the US. It is a regional product, referred to as ’Southern Cured Ham’. In Spain, the production 

of cured ham is also very important and hams made in Spain are also subject to infestation by 

mites. Species of concern include: Tyrophagus putrescentiae, T. longior, T. casei and 

Blattisocius dentriticus. MBTOC has obtained unpublished information that indicates the 

treatment against mites in ham is to dip the product into melted lard and oil at 90oC for a short 

time (Roca, pers comm. 2007). Cured ham facilities in Spain are reportedly sprayed with 

insecticides such as phenothrin, and/or tetramethrin with or without piperonyl butoxide 

synergist. MBTOC has no basis for comparison of these pork products, or to know if the mite 

species of concern are the same. However, given the difficulty in finding effective and safe 

methods, and in light of the US multi-state research program on this problem, MBTOC offers 

this information as a possible avenue for investigation. 

8.2.4 Methyl Bromide Recapture Technologies Update 

The RAZEM methyl bromide recapture and recycling system has been under test in 2006 

(Spruyt et al. 2006). In one test series, 80% of methyl bromide added to an empty freight 

container was recovered in 30 minutes, with 99.98 % recovery in 4 hours. A pre-series 

version was tested in July 2007 by the Belgian authorities. About 100 kg of methyl bromide 

has been recaptured and recycled during the last 7 months, representing a 50% saving on 

normal methyl bromide use. The Belgian Federal Authority is reported to support the use of 

QPS methyl bromide with recovery until an equivalently effective, and more ecological gas, 

for quarantine has been found (Williame, E. 2007. pers comm.). It was also said that a 

replacement gas would also need to be recoverable. A decision has been made to build the 

first 8 commercial RAZEM units with capability of recovering methyl bromide from up to 

200 containers per day in the port of Antwerp, by July 1, 2007 (Williame, E. 2007. pers 

comm.). 

In the US, Value Recovery’s Methyl Bromide Scrubbing System has become commercially 

available and has made further technical advances (Joyce, P. 2007. pers. comm.). The process 

uses liquid scrubbing with ammonium thiosulphate solution. A modification has been 

introduced that integrates the scrubber with carbon adsorption allowing for the recapture and 

destruction of methyl bromide vented from large systems at rates that will not interrupt 

current operations, e.g. from QPS chambers of 5,700 m3

, and structural fumigations of 

28,000 m3

. In trials, the scrubber achieved 91% MB destruction with one pass. Value 

Recovery will guarantee 99% recovery and destruction, but with increased capital cost, by 

adding a secondary carbon adsorption unit onto the exhaust from the liquid system (Joyce, P. 

2007. pers. comm.). 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 71

8.2.5 References 

Arash B. 2005. Personal communication, Mr B. Arash, European Commission, Brussels. 

Bergweff, F. CEO EcO2 BV. Numansdorp, The Netherlands. Pers. comm. 

Brown, G. 2006. Maintaining apple fruit quality with CATTS disinfestation treatment. In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 89. 

Conyers, S. T. and C.H. Bell. 2003. The effect of modified atmospheres on the survival of the eggs of 

four storage mite species. Experimental and Applied Acarology 31, 115-130. 

EFSA 2006. DAR Assessment Report. Initial Risk Assessment Provided by the Member State 

Rapporteur for the Existing Active Substance Methyl Bromide of the Third Stage (part 

A) of the Review Programme referred to in Article 8(2) of Council Directive 

91/414/EEC, following quality review by the EFSA Pesticides Risk Assessment Peer 

Review (PRAPeR). Volumes 1 – 3(B1-B9). European Food Safety Authority. 

Federal Register. 2007. Importation of mangoes from India, APHIS 7CFR Parts 305-319. March 12, 

2007. Vol 72.# 47, pp 10902-10907 

HSE 2006. Biocides Fact Sheet. Issue No. 26. June 2006. Health and Safey Executive, UK. 

Johnson, J. A., and J.D. Hansen. 2006. Development of a systems approach for US cherries exported to 

Japan. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 72. 

Joyce, P. 2007. Value Recovery Systems. Pers comm. 

IPPC. 2006. ISPM No. 15. Guidelines for regulating wood packaging material in international trade 

(2002) with modifications to Annex 1 (2006). IPPC: Rome. 11pp. 

Leach, P. 2006. Non-chemical treatments for controlled of fruit fly in tropical fruit. In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 91. 

Mitcham, E. 2006. Controlled atmosphere/temperature treatments to control codling moths in Bartlett 

pears. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 88. 

Neven, L. 2006. Controlled atmosphere temperature treatment system (CATTS): A history and 

summary of treatments for apples and stone fruits. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 3 – 

6, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA. Paper 86. 

Ren Y. L. and Mahon D. 2006. Penetration of methyl bromide, phosphine, sulfuryl fluoride and 

ethanedinitrile through a timber block. Proc. Post Harvest Timber Forum. 28 –29 

November 2006, Canberra, Australia. Paper 11. 

Roca, J. Roca Defisan SL. Barcelona Spain. www.rocadefisan.com., pers comm.. 

Sanchez-Ramos, I. and P. Castanera. in press. Effect of temperature on reproductive parameters and 

longevity of Acarus farris (Acari: Acaridae). Journal of Stored Products Research. 

Spruyt M., Bormans R. and Goelen E. 2006. Performance of the RAZEM –technology to recover 

methyl bromide in fumigation processes. Work performed under contract with Declean 

(sic) Belgium N.V. Contract number. 061217. 2006/MIM/R/115. August 2006. 33pp. 

Vick, K. USDA Agriculture Research Service. Beltsville Maryland. Pers. Comm. 

UNEP. 2007. 2006 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 2006 Assessment. 

UNEP: Nairobi. 

Vroom, N., 2006. Improved treatment times for controlled atmospheres in stored product pest control. 

Presented to: Annual International Research Conference on MB Alternatives and 

Emissions Reduction. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Outreach. Nov 2006 Orlando 

Florida. 

Williame, E. 2007. Razem Technologies. Pers comm 

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 73

9 2007 Critical Use Nominations 

9.1 Evaluation of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide and 

Related Matters; General Considerations and Scope of the Report 

This 2007 interim report provides initial evaluations by MBTOC of CUNs submitted for 

methyl bromide by Parties in 2007 in accordance with Decision IX/6 (Annex I). CUNs were 

submitted to the Ozone Secretariat by the Parties, in accordance with the timetable set out in 

the Annex I referred to by Decision XVI/4 (Annex II). MBTOC is reporting following a 

temporary schedule to ensure reports are prepared early enough to meet the meeting 

scheduled by Parties in this year of the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. 

In late 2006, TEAP Co-Chairs announced a reorganization of MBTOC, separating it into two 

independent sub-committees, recognizing the differing expertise required for the two main 

groupings of CUNs, those relating to postharvest and structural uses and those involved with 

soil fumigation. MBTOC Soils (MBTOC S) has responsibility for the pre-plant uses and 

alternatives of methyl bromide. MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities (MBTOC 

QSC) has responsibility for issues concerning methyl bromide uses and alternatives for 

quarantine, pre-shipment, structural and commodities. Evaluations of CUNs for the two 

categories are reported separately below. 

9.2 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide 

9.2.1 Mandate 

Under Article 2H of the Montreal Protocol the production and consumption (defined as 

production plus imports minus exports) of methyl bromide is to be phased out in Parties not 

operating under Article 5(1) of the Protocol, by 1 January 2005. However, the Parties agreed 

to a provision enabling exemptions for those uses of methyl bromide that qualify as critical. 

Parties established criteria, under Decision IX/6 of the Protocol, which all such uses need to 

meet in order to be granted an exemption. Refer to Annex 1 for a copy of Decision IX/6. 

All reviews of CUNs made in 2007 are to be in accordance with the ‘Annex I’ referred to in 

Decision XVI/4. This annex also sets out the procedure and timetable for the annual review of 

critical use nominations. In addition to the criteria for the evaluation provided in Decision 

IX/6, the Parties have given further guidance for the review of CUNs in Annex 1 of MOP-16 

meeting report. Inter alia, this requires that TEAP and MBTOC provide a clear description of 

why any part of a nomination is not recommended, including references to the relevant 

studies used as the basis for such a decision. Para. 32 emphasizes that exemptions must fully 

comply with Decision IX/6 and other relevant decisions, and are intended to be limited to the 

levels needed for critical use exemptions. These are considered as temporary derogations 

from the phaseout of methyl bromide in that they are to apply only until there are technically 

and economically feasible alternatives that meet the criteria in Decision IX/6, and that 

MBTOC should take a precise and transparent approach to the application of the criteria, 

having regard, especially, to paragraphs 4 and 20 of Annex I. 

Paragraphs 4 and 20 read: 

4. Although the burden of proof remains with the Party to justify a request for a 

critical-use exemption, MBTOC will provide in its report a clear explanation of 

its operation with respect to the process of making determinations for its 

recommendations, and clearly state the approach, assumptions and reasoning 

used in the evaluation of the critical-use nominations. When cuts or denials are 

proposed, the description should include citations and also indicate where 
74 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

alternatives are technically and economically feasible in circumstances similar to 

those in the nomination, as described in decision Ex.1/5, paragraph 8. 

20. In line with paragraph 4 above, in any case in which a Party makes a 

nomination which relies on the economic criteria of decision IX/6, MBTOC 

should, in its report, explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic 

argument and explicitly explain how it addressed that factor, and, in cases in 

which MBTOC recommends a cut; MBTOC should also provide an explanation 

of its economic feasibility. 

9.2.2 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions 

MBTOC S and MBTOC QSC subcommittees met concurrently19-23 March 2007 in Alassio, 

Italy. This meeting was held as required by the time schedule for considerations of CUNs 

given in Annex I referred to in Decision XVI/4 and in light of the advanced dates resulting 

from an earlier MOP this year in celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Montreal Protocol. 

If required, further meetings to consider further input from nominating Parties on their various 

CUNs will be held separately by each MBTOC sub committee in July, 2007. These meetings 

will produce a final report on this round of CUNs in August, 2007. 

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2008 and 2009. No nominations in this 

particular round were submitted for longer periods. Some nominations were for both 2008 

and 2009. 

MBTOC Soils made an initial assessment of the 14 critical use nominations for 2008 and 29 

nominations for 2009. These totalled 1194.396 and 5843.066 metric tonnes respectively. At 

this time for these nominations, MBTOC has been able to recommend a total of 3183.407 

tonnes, being 996.746 tonnes for 2008 and 2186.660 tonnes for 2009. 

MBTOC QSC made an initial assessment of the seven new or additional critical use 

nominations for 2008 and nine nominations for 2009, totalling 11.535 and 529.721 metric 

tonnes respectively. At this time for these nominations, MBTOC has been able to recommend 

3.952 tonnes for 2008 and 476.017 tonnes for 2009. 

All Parties submitting nominations had done so in previous CUN rounds. The total number of 

nominations and nominating Parties has been reduced from about 90 nominations submitted 

by 14 countries in the last round, to 59 in this round with 10 being for two years. Three 

Parties that had CUEs in the previous round did not submit further nominations in the final 

round for 2008 and others submitted nominations for a reduced number of sectors. Two 

Parties submitted new requests (for sweet potato production and for fumigation of 

rodenticides/molluscicides) which had not been applied for previously by that Party. Some 

CUNs were for increased acreages of crop under methyl bromide treatment. 

One Party met with MBTOC during the Alassio meeting for discussions with regard to their 

CUNs, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4. 

MBTOC has sometimes recommended quantities of MB for 2008 or 2009 different from that 

nominated. Grounds used for these recommendations are given in detail after the relevant 

CUNs in Tables 9.9 and 9.11. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in 

Tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.10. 

Some nominations were placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category where MBTOC found 

information insufficient as required under paragraph 10 of Annex 1 of the final report of 

MOP-16. Additionally, some nominations were placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category 

where reports were not submitted to substantiate commercial trials of alternatives; this allows 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 75

Parties additional time to conduct the trials and/or send the reports. One nomination was 

placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category awaiting cost data substantiating the inability to 

begin to adopt alternatives at some level. In some nominations, more information was 

required where a more specific characterisation of the crop varieties and system was needed, 

where clarification of cropping areas impacted by regulatory control (e.g. township) was 

necessary or when justification as to why chemical or non chemical alternatives, or MB/Pic 

formulations with lower amounts of MB (e.g. 50:50, 33:67), could not be used under the 

circumstances of the nomination. 

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4, Parties, among other things, 

specifically requested that MBTOC explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic 

argument relating to CUNs. Tables 9.9 and 9.11 provide this information for each CUN. This 

information was prepared by MBTOC economists. 

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on 

alternatives, scale-up of alternatives, economic issues and to a much smaller degree, the 

technical unavailability of alternatives. For the most part technical alternatives exist, but they 

may be less commercially adopted than methyl bromide. Additionally, MBTOC notes that 

some Parties continue to struggle with the ability to adapt previously identified alternatives to 

their circumstances, within their definition of economic feasibility. 

As in 2006, MBTOC has been unable to identify alternatives, or has inadequate information, 

for CUNs relating to treatment of some cheese in storage and for dry cure pork, during curing. 

9.2.3 Disclosure of Interest 

MBTOC members have prepared disclosure of interest forms relating specifically to their 

level of national, regional or enterprise involvement for the 2007 CUN process, according to a 

standardised format developed by TEAP. This was required to ensure that those with a high 

level of involvement and interest in developing a particular nomination did not bias the 

process of evaluation through participation in the detailed review. The Disclosure of Interest 

statements are found in the Annex III to this TEAP Progress Report. As in previous rounds, 

some members withdrew from a particular CUN assessment or only provided technical advice 

on request for those nominations where a potential conflict of interest was declared. 

9.2.4 MBTOC Process 

Following a restructuring or refocusing of MBTOC by TEAP, the MBTOC QSC 

subcommittee considered the nominations relating to the use of MB for fumigation of 

structures and commodities. The MBTOC Soils subcommittee considered the nominations 

relating to the use of MB for soil fumigation. Consensus decisions were made in 

subcommittees. Outcomes from deliberations by the two MBTOC subcommittees were 

presented in plenary to allow comments from members of either subcommittees to be 

submitted in writing, in event of disagreement with findings of the other subcommittee, for 

later consideration. 

Unless otherwise indicated, the most recent CUE approved by the Parties for a particular 

CUN was used as baseline for consideration of continuing nominations. In some instances, 

this quantity differed from that used as a baseline by the nominating Party. 

Assessments were independent of the size of the nominated quantity. Specific circumstances 

of each nomination were taken into account. 

Standard presumptions were used by MBTOC to assess nominations and are given in the 

sections below. 
76 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

9.2.5 Critical Use Nominations Review 

In considering the CUNs submitted in 2007, as previously, both MBTOC subcommittees 

applied the standards contained in Annex I of the final report of MOP-16, and, where 

relevant, the standard presumptions given below in Tables 9.4, 9.5 and 9.10. In particular 

MBTOC sought to provide consistent treatment of CUNs within and between Parties while at 

the same time taking local circumstances into consideration, and also to provide transparency 

in its processes and conclusions. 

In evaluating the CUNs for soil treatments, MBTOC assumed that a technically feasible 

alternative to MB would need to provide sufficient pest and/or weed control for continued 

production of that crop to existing market standards. 

For commodity and structural applications, it was assumed that technically and economically 

feasible alternatives would provide disinfestation to a level that met the objectives of a MB 

treatment, e.g. meeting infestation standards in finished product from a mill, while ensuring 

the costs were economically feasible in the context of that nomination, to the extent that could 

be determined. 

Technically feasible alternatives do not necessarily provide superior pest control results than 

are achieved in practice by MB; economically feasible alternatives do not necessarily cost the 

same as MB. 

9.2.6 Plans to Develop, Register and Deploy Alternatives 

To qualify for a CUE, Decision IX/6 in part states that Parties must demonstrate that “...an 

appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory 

approval of alternatives and substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the 

particular nomination...” and “...must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to 

develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes...” 

In many nominations in the 2007 round, plans to identify alternatives were often not adequate 

in MBTOC’s opinion and future plans to phase out MB were not given. As with the 2004, 

2005 and 2006 rounds, MBTOC did not use lack of phaseout plans as a basis to ‘not 

recommend’ a nomination. Appendix V summarizes the National Management Plans 

submitted to the Ozone Secretariat. 

 

Several Parties did however, identify feasible alternatives and reduced their nominations to 

allow for phase-in of these alternatives. MBTOC did not reduce a Party’s requested amount 

for phase-in of alternatives without technical and economic evaluation and suitable 

justification. 

9.2.7 Fulfilment of Decision IX/6 

Decision XVI/2 directed MBTOC to indicate whether all CUNs fully met the requirements of 

Decision IX/6. When the requirements of Decision IX/6 were met, MBTOC recommended 

the full amount of the request. Where some of the conditions were not fully met, MBTOC 

recommended a decreased amount, or was unable to assess, depending on its technical and 

economic evaluation. MBTOC reduced a nomination when a technical alternative was 

considered effective or, in a few cases, when the Party failed to show that it was not effective. 

In this round of CUNs, as in previous rounds, MBTOC considered answers submitted by 

Parties in response to questions previously sent. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 77

MBTOC’s interpretation of fulfilment of Decision IX/6, in respect to evaluating alternatives, 

has become more definite as time has made more information about alternatives known. 

Decision XVI/6 (b, iii) requires Parties to 

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, 

commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes, 

taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular nomination and the 

special needs of Article 5 Parties, including lack of financial and expert resources, 

institutional capacity, and information. Non-Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that 

research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes. 

Article 5 Parties must demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon 

as they are confirmed as suitable to the Party’s specific conditions and/or that they 

have applied to the Multilateral Fund or other sources for assistance in identifying, 

evaluating, adapting and demonstrating such options; 

In the past, MBTOC has found that some applicants had conducted no research and/or no 

commercial trials and/or did not document an effort made to evaluate alternatives. In earlier 

years, these applicants tended to be small operators, where research costs would have been 

prohibitive. MBTOC QSC has not required all applicants to conduct their own research where 

that would duplicate work done elsewhere. In earlier years, MBTOC QSC relied on its own 

knowledge to determine if alternatives would have been effective in the circumstances of the 

nomination. 

However, as time has passed and since knowledge of alternatives is better known to 

applicants and Parties, MBTOC has become firmer on this aspect of Decision IX/6. 

Applicants and Parties are expected to conduct research and/or evaluate the research 

conducted by others in the circumstances of their nomination, to document that effort and 

submit the documents to MBTOC. Now that alternatives have been identified for most 

applications, the documents should take the form of reports of field trials and commercial 

scale up trials, directly pertinent to the circumstances of that particular nomination. 

Nominations were classed as ‘unable to assess’ where Parties did not conduct commercial 

trials, substantiated by reports, unless the alternative was not registered. 

Economic feasibility of alternatives is also being more definitely requested. MBTOC has 

encountered difficulty in assessment when yield losses presented in some nominations differ 

markedly from those reported in a large number of studies in similar circumstances and are 

not substantiated by references. This further ensures that aspects of Decision IX/6 are met. 

In some cases, MBTOC has proposed to Parties potential research and regulatory issues that 

could assist research on alternatives and phase out of MB. 

9.2.8 Consideration of Stocks 

One criterion for granting a critical use under Decision IX/6 is that methyl bromide for the use 

“is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks of banked or recycled 

methyl bromide” (para 1 (b) (ii)). Parties nominating critical use exemptions are requested 

under decision Ex.I/4(9f) to submit an accounting framework, which provide the information 

on stocks. By the end of March 2007, accounting frameworks (incomplete in some cases) had 

been received from the following nominating Parties: Australia, Canada, European 

Community, Japan and the United States of America. 

Parties holding stocks of MB can use these stocks for multiple purposes, not only for the 

purpose of critical use exemptions. Hence, determination by MBTOC of whether or not 

existing stocks held by a Party is ‘sufficient’ for critical uses is a difficult task. MBTOC has 

requested information from relevant Parties on the use of their stocks. However, the 
78 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

information received from the Parties in this regard did not enable MBTOC to adjust the 

nominations to take account of reported stocks. 

In accordance with decision XVIII/13(7), a summary of the data on stocks reported by the 

Parties in 2007 for 2006 has been summarised in Table 9.2 below. Parties may wish to 

consider this information in light of Decision IX/6 1(b)(ii). Table 9.1 shows the stocks data 

that were reported by the Parties in 2006 for 2005. 

Table 9.1 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2005, as reported by 

Parties in 2006 under Decision XVI/6. 

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) 

Party Critical use 

exemptions 

authorized 

by MOP for 

2005 

Amount on 

hand at 

start of 

2005 

Quantity 

Acquired for 

CUEs in 2005 

(production 

+imports) 

Amount 

available 

for use in 

2005 

Quantity used 

for CUEs in 

2005 

Amount on 

hand at the 

end of 2005 

Australia 146.600 0 114.912 114.912 114.912 0 

Canada 61.792 0 48.858 48.858 45.146 3.712 

EC 4,392.812 216.198 2,435.319 2,651.517 2,530.099 121.023 

Israel 1,089.306 16.358 1,072.350 1,088.708 1,088.708 0 

Japan 748.000 0 546.861 546.861 546.861 0 

New 

Zealand 

50.000 6.900 40.500 47.400 44.580 2.810 

USA(a) 9,552.879 7,613.000 not reported 7,170.000 443.000 

(a) Additional information on stocks was reported on US EPA website, September 2006: Methyl bromide 

inventory held by US companies: 2004 = 12,994 tonnes; 2005 = 9,974 tonnes. 

Table 9.2 Quantities of MB ‘on hand’ at the beginning and end of 2006, as reported by 

Parties in 2007 under Decision XVI/6. 

Quantity of MB as reported by Parties (metric tonnes) 

Party Critical use 

exemptions 

authorized 

by MOP for 

2006 

Amount on 

hand at 

start of 

2006 

Quantity 

acquired for 

CUEs in 2006 

(production + 

imports)

Amount 

available 

for use in 

2006 

Quantity used 

for CUEs in 

2006 

Amount at 

the end of 

2006 

Australia 75.100 0 55.308 55.308 0 

Canada 53.897 3.7 41.967 54.667 Not yet 

available 

Not yet 

available 

EC 3,527.030 114.953 1,472.781 1,587.734 [1,519.184](a) [68.550](a) 

Israel 880.295 - - - - - 

Japan 741.400 70.735 488.810 559.545 540.207 19.338 

USA 8,081.753 9,974.000(b) 

443.000(c) 

6,924.000 16,898.000 7,168.000(d) 7,671.000(e) 

539.000(f) 

(a) Preliminary data subject to update. 

(b) Amount of pre-2005 stock on hand. 

(c) Amount of stocks at the end of 2005 from production/imports specifically made for CUEs (acquired in 2005). 

(d) The sum of 6,384 tonnes of production/imports for CUEs plus 784 tonnes used from stocks. 

(e) Amount of pre-2005 stocks remaining at the end of 2006. 

(f) Amount of stocks at the end of 2006 remaining from production/imports specifically made for CUEs 

(acquired in 2006). 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 79

9.2.9 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9(10) 

Decision XVII/9(10) of MOP-17 requests TEAP and its MBTOC to “report for 2005 and 

annually thereafter, for each agreed critical use category, the amount of methyl bromide 

nominated by a Party, the amount of the agreed critical use and either: 

(a) The amount licensed, permitted or authorised; or 

(b) The amount used” 

Since 2005, there has been a progressive trend by all Parties to reduce their consumption and 

CUN nominations, although this has occurred at different rates. Table 9.3 below shows the 

amounts nominated and exempted for ‘Critical Use’ fopr each Party in 2008 and 2009. 

Appendix III shows the trends since 2005 for each nomination. The amounts licensed, 

authorized, permitted or used for each category of critical use are not available. 

9.2.10 Rates of Adoption 

In previous rounds of CUNs, the Parties have recognised that time is needed to effect phase-in 

of alternatives and has accepted this as a reasonable technical argument for lack of availability 

to the end user sensu Decision IX/6. MBTOC has used this approach in making evaluations of 

this round of CUNs. 

Some CUNs in the 2007 round argued that time was required to allow the relevant industry to 

transition to available alternatives. They showed a reduction in nominated quantity requested 

from that of the preceding year, reflecting progressive adoption of alternatives; while others 

had the same or similar quantities of MB nominated to the preceding CUNs. 

In several of the CUNs adoption rates were low. In some cases, alternatives at varying stages 

of readiness for adoption were identified in the CUN and in others they were identified by 

MBTOC. In cases where adoption rates indicated by the Party were considered too slow 

because alternatives were available and had been adopted by users in the nominated region 

and similar industries elsewhere, MBTOC made an assessment for uptake of such 

alternatives. 

Data on the commercial use of soil alternatives shows that substantial adoption of alternatives 

in regions with similar pests and climates to those seeking CUNs has occurred within 4 years 

or less (e.g. many countries within the EC, Australia, USA with specific regions e.g. 

California). 

Adoption of structural and commodity alternatives has not been linear; early adoption rates 

were low, in part because of the then recent registration of alternatives. In the past two years 

however, adoption of alternatives for commodity and structural uses has ranged from 5 – 

40%, depending on the situation; the use of MB for some commodities has been completely 

phased out. In many countries there has been time for fumigator training, logistical changes, 

the building of appropriate fumigation chambers etc, and so MBTOC has expected phase-out 

rates in the higher ranges, unless there are registration restrictions or other issues specific to a 

Party’s particular circumstances. 

There is limited guidance and data available on what is a reasonable rate of transition to 

existing and available alternatives, though paragraph 35 of Annex I referred to in Decision 

XVI/4 states that “In situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it 

is necessary to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time 

period must be explained fully in the TEAP report and take fully into account the information 

provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the manufacturer. Relevant 
80 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

factors for such a calculation include the number of enterprises that need to transition, e.g., 

the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated training time assuming full 

effort, opportunities for importing alternative equipment and expertise if not available locally, 

and costs involved.” 

In the past, where several industries have been heavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, 

tomatoes and other vegetable crops (eg. Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and other countries 

of the EC, Australia) almost complete adoption of alternative technologies (especially those 

requiring similar application technologies) has been achieved in a 3 to 4 year period. Theses 

regions have similar pests complexes to those requesting CUNs but may have different 

regulatory issues. 

Improved guidance from the Parties, giving expected rates of adoption of alternatives 

following registration, would assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future. 

In the MBTOC QSC nominations one Party has indicated that its harvest quantities of a 

commodity, for which a CUE is sought, have been diminished over several years as a result of 

global warming; as a result it has reported an inability to invest in methyl bromide 

alternatives. 

A key transitional strategy for treatment of structures has been the use of alternatives in 

rotation with methyl bromide. For some CUNs related to structural treatments, reductions in 

MB could have been achieved, where effective alternatives were identified, by reducing the 

frequency of MB use. Some structural methyl bromide users have reduced frequency of 

fumigation by substituting alternatives for some or most of the MB fumigations. This strategy 

is at an early stage of trial and understanding. MBTOC QSC suggests that in these and other 

instances MB may only be required every 2, 3 or 4 years at most and suggests that Parties 

consider further reductions in MB nominated where appropriate. Accepting alternative use as 

part of a strategy to reduce MB fumigation may also help provide or extend user confidence 

and experience in alternatives. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Table 9.3 Summary of Critical Use Nomination (2005 – 2009 in part) and Exemption (2005 – 2008 in part) amount

CUN/CUE process. (Note: A breakdown of CUN and CUE amounts by commodity is given in the ANNEX after 9.3) 

PARTY QUANTITIES NOMINATED QUANTITIE

Total Nomination For 2005 

Total Nomination For 2006 

Total nominations for 2007 

Nomination for 2008 

Nomination for 2009

2005 (1ExMOP and 16MOP) 

2006 (16MOP+ 2ExMOP+ 17MOP) 

Australia 206.950 81.250 52.145 52.900 38.990 146.600 75.100 

Canada 61.992 53.897 46.745 42.241 34.443 61.792 53.897 

European 

Community6

5754.361 4213.47 1239.873 245.000 * 4392.812 3536.755 

Israel 1117.156 1081.506 1236.517 952.845 851.395 1089.306 880.295 

Japan 748.000 738.700 651.700 589.600 508.900 748.000 741.400 

New 

Zealand 

53.085 53.085 32.573 0 0 50.000 42.000 

Switzerland 8.700 7.000 0 0 0 8.700 7.000 

USA 10753.997 9386.229 7417.999 6415.153 4942.227 9552.879 8081.753 

TOTALS 18704.24 15615.135 10677.55 8297.739 6375.955 16050.089 13418.200 

1 Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs in 2005 – 2007 include: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malt

United Kingdom.

6 Members of the European Community having CUNs/CUEs include: 

2005 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 

2006 – Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. 

2007 – France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom 2008 – Poland, Spain 
82 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

9.3 Evaluation of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide and 

Related Matters; MBTOC Soils Interim Report – March 2007 (MBTOCS) 

9.3.1 Scope of the MBTOC - S Report 

This 2007 MBTOC Soils interim report provides initial evaluations of MBTOC/TEAP on 

CUNs submitted by Parties in 2007, in accordance with the timetable set out in the Annex I 

referred to by Decision XVI/4. MBTOC has provided MB consumption figures in the 2006 

Assessment Report and also provided updated tables and figures of trend lines for previous 

critical use exemptions in this report. This information has been reviewed in the light of 

management strategies previously submitted by Parties pursuant to Decision Ex.I/4 (9d). 

9.3.2 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide 

9.3.2.1 Evaluations of CUNs – 2006 round for 2007 and 2008 exemptions 

MBTOC- Soils met 19-23 March 2007 in Alassio, Italy. If required a further meeting to 

consider further input from nominating Parties on their various CUNs, particularly those 

'unable-to-assess' in this report, is scheduled for 9-13 July 2007 in Costa Rica. This latter 

meeting will produce a final report on this round of CUNs. 

For pre-plant soil uses, seven Parties submitted 14 critical use nominations for 2008 and 29 

nominations for 2009. These totalled 1194.396 and 5843.066 metric tonnes respectively. 

These Parties had submitted nominations in previous CUN rounds. The total number of 

nominations and nominating Parties has been reduced from about 70 nominations submitted 

by 14 countries in the last round, to 43 in this round with 10 being for two years. Three 

Parties that had CUEs in the previous round did not submit further nominations in the final 

round for 2008 and others submitted nominations for a reduced number of sectors. One Party 

submitted a new request for sweet potatoes which had not been applied for before in that 

country. 

 

One Party made arrangements to meet with MBTOC Soils during the Alassio meeting for 

discussions with regard to their CUNs, in accordance with paragraph 8 of Annex 1 referred to 

in Decision XVI/4. 

9.3.2.2 Consideration of alternatives 

As in previous years, MBTOC used the guidance given in Annex I where ‘alternatives’ were 

defined as any practice or treatment that can be used in place of methyl bromide. ‘Existing 

alternatives’ are those alternatives in present or past use in some regions; and ‘potential 

alternatives’ are those alternatives in the process of investigation or development. MBTOC 

also used information on the suitability of alternatives for a nomination by considering the 

commercial adoption of alternatives in regions nominated for CUNs. Also, adoption in 

regions with similar climatic zone and cropping practices was used as an indication of the 

feasibility (technical and economic) of an alternative in a similar region. For example, 1,3-

dichloropropene/chloropicrin (1,3-D/Pic), metham sodium alone or in combination with Pic, 

dazomet, substrates and the use of resistant varieties and grafted plants (for solanaceous 

crops, melons and other cucurbits) have been adopted to replace MB for a range of crops in 

industries applying for CUNs and in many regions where MB was once used. MBTOC was 

‘unable to assess’ several nominations that did not explain or provide sufficient evidence why 

these major alternatives were unsuitable for the specific circumstances of a nomination. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 83

In evaluating the CUNs for soil treatments, MBTOC assumed that a technically feasible 

alternative to MB would need to provide sufficient pest and/or weed control for continued 

production of that crop to existing market standards. 

MBTOC evaluation of CUNs relating to production of strawberries, tomatoes and some other 

crops was assisted by information provided by a large number of published studies on MB 

alternatives and by a meta-analysis (TEAP 2006, Porter et al., 2006). The published studies 

provided additional transparency to MBTOC evaluations, as requested by the Parties in 

Decision 15/4. 

In paragraph 20 of Annex 1 referred to in Decision XVI/4, Parties, inter alia, specifically 

requested that, in cases where a nomination relies on the economic criteria of Decision IX/6, 

MBTOC’s report should explicitly state the central basis for the Party’s economic argument 

relating to CUNs. Tables 9.9 provides this information for each CUN that relied on economic 

criteria. 

9.3.2.3 Period of nominations 

CUNs in this report relate to CUEs sought for 2008 and 2009. No nominations in this 

particular round were submitted for years following 2009. One Party, Israel, submitted 

nominations for both 2008 and 2009, for several crops. 

9.3.2.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities. 

The tables below (Tables 9.4, 9.5) provide statements of standard presumptions applied by 

MBTOC/TEAP in assessing this round of CUNs where continued methyl bromide use is 

sought. These standard presumptions were first proposed in the MBTOC report of October 

2005 and were presented to the Parties at MOP-17. 

Presently the rates and practices adopted by MBTOC as standard presumptions are based on 

maximum rates considered acceptable by published literature. For soil treatments, the dosage 

levels of methyl bromide given in these presumptions are considered the maximum dose for 

almost all instances and may exceed those required for good agricultural practice in all but 

exceptional circumstances, particularly when used in conjunction with low gas permeability 

barrier films (LPBF), such as various VIF and metallised barrier films. A copy of the actual 

dosage rate of MB in MB/Pic formulations and those used as standard presumptions is shown 

in Tables 9.4 and 9.5. MBTOC is presently reviewing these guidelines to more accurately 

reflect feasible doses with methyl bromide/chloropicrin combinations and will present a 

revised set of presumptions to the MOP-19. 

As in the evaluations in previous years, MBTOC considered reductions to quantities of MB in 

particular nominations to a standard rate per treated area where technical evidence supported 

its use. Although 250 kg/ ha (25g/m2

) is often used, MBTOC considers the maximum MB 

application rate for 98% MB to be 350 kg/ha (35 g/ m2

), in conjunction with low barrier 

permeability films (e.g., VIF or equivalent), combined with extended exposure periods, as 

effective in most circumstances when correctly applied. In cases where use of high 

chloropicrin-containing mixtures (approximately MB:Pic 67:33 or 50:50) is considered 

feasible, maximum dosage rates of 175 kg MB/ha (17.5 g/ m2

) where nutgrass is the key pest 

and 150 kg/ha for pathogens are regarded as reasonable and were used as the maximum 

standard presumptions unless there was a regulatory or technical reason indicated otherwise 

by the Party. 

As a special case, MBTOC accepted a maximum rate of 200 kg/ ha (20 g/m2

) for certified 

strawberry runner production in the absence of data that showed certification standards could 
84 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

be met in the circumstances of particular nominations. However, several Parties indicated that 

rates of 200 kg/ha (20g/m2

) or less (Table 9.6) of MB:Pic 50:50 were effective with barrier 

films for production of ‘certified’ strawberry runners and may be suitable for other 

propagation material. Several Parties indicated that 250 kg/ha (25g/m2

) of 98:2 were 

effectively used in standard commercial application. 

The indicative rates used by MBTOC were maximum guideline rates, for the purpose of 

calculation only. MBTOC recognises that the actual rate appropriate for a specific use may 

vary with local circumstances, soil conditions and the target pest situation. Some nominations 

were based on rates lower than these indicative rates. 

Table 9.4 Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs for the 2007 round – soil 

treatments. 

Comment CUN adjustment Exceptions 

1. Dosage rates Maximum guideline rates for 

MB:Pic 98:2 35 g/m2 with barrier 

films (VIF or equivalent); for 

MB/Pic 67:33 - 15g or 17.5g 

MB/m2

 for pathogens and nutsedge 

respectively, under barrier films. 

All rates on a ‘per treated hectare’ 

basis. 

Amount adjusted to maximum 

guideline rates. Maximum rates 

set dependent on formulation 

and soil type and film 

availability. 

Higher rates accepted if 

specified under national 

legislation or where the Party 

had justified otherwise. 

2. Barrier films All treatments to be carried out 

under low permeability barrier film 

(e.g. VIF) 

Nomination reduced 

proportionately to conform to 

barrier film use. 

Where barrier film 

prohibited or restricted by 

legislative or regulatory 

reasons 

3. MB/Pic 

Formulation: 

Pathogen control 

Unless otherwise specified, MB/Pic 

50:50 (or similar) was considered 

to be the standard effective 

formulation for pathogen control, 

as a transitional strategy to replace 

MB/Pic 98:2. 

Nominated amount adjusted for 

use with MB/Pic 50:50 (or 

similar). 

Where MB/Pic 50:50 is not 

registered, or chloropicrin 

(Pic) is not registered 

4. MB/Pic 

Formulation: 

Weeds/nutgrass 

control 

Unless otherwise specified, MB/Pic 

67:33 (or similar) was used as the 

standard effective formulation for 

control of resistant (tolerant) 

weeds, as a transitional strategy to 

replace MB/Pic 98:2. 

Nominated amount adjusted for 

use with MB/Pic 67:33 (or 

similar). 

Where chloropicrin or 

chloropicrin-containing 

mixtures are not registered 

5. Strip vs. 

Broadacre 

Fumigation with MB and mixtures 

to be carried out under strip 

Where rates were shown in 

broadacre hectares, the CUN 

was adjusted to the MB rate 

relative to strip treatment (i.e. 

treated area). If not specified, 

the area under strip treatment 

was considered to represent 67% 

of the total area. 

Where strip treatment was 

not feasible e.g. some 

protected cultivation or open 

field production of high 

health propagative material 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 85

Table 9.5 Actual dosage rates applied during pre-plant fumigation when different rates 

and formulations of methyl bromide/chloropicrin mixtures are applied with and 

without barrier films. Rates of application reflect standard commercial 

applications rates 

MB/Pic formulation (dose of MB in g/m2 Commercial ) 

application rates 

of formulation 

98:2 67:33 50:50 30:70 

A. With Standard Polyethylene Films 

400 39.2 26.8 20.0 12.0 

350 34.3 23.5 17.5 10.5 

300 29.4 20.1 15.0 9.0 

B. With Low Permeability Barrier Films (LPBF) 

250 24.5 16.8 12.5 7.5 

200 19.6 13.4 10.0* 6.0 

175 17.2 11.8 8.8 5.3 

* Note: Trials from 1996 to 2007 (Table 9.6) show that a dosage of 10g/m2 (eg. MB/Pic 50:50 at 

200kg/ha with LP Barrier Films) is technically feasible for many situations and equivalent to the 

standard dosage of >20g/m2 using standard films 

9.3.2.5 Use/Emission reduction technologies - Low permeability barrier films and dosage 

reduction 

Decision IX/6 states in part that critical uses should be permitted only if ‘all technically and 

economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated 

emission of methyl bromide’. Decision Ex.II/1 also mentions emission minimisation 

techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wherever methyl bromide is authorised for 

critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimisation techniques such as virtually 

impermeable films, barrier film technologies, deep shank injection and/or other techniques 

that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and economically feasible.” 

In this round, MBTOC assessed CUNs where possible for reductions in MB application rates 

and deployment of MB emission reduction technologies, such as use of LPBF, including VIF, 

or other appropriate sealing and emission control techniques including deep injection of MB, 

use of formulations with a lower proportion of MB and/ or reduced frequency of application. 

A large number of studies under field conditions in a number of regions (Table 9.6), together 

with the large scale adoption of barrier films in Europe (e.g. VIF), support the use of these 

films as a means to reduce MB dosage rates. Controlled studies have also shown substantial 

reductions in MB emissions (Wang 1997, Yates 2005, Fraser et al., 2006, Ou et al., 2007). 

Research and development on low permeability barrier films (LPBF) has been summarised in 

the previous MBTOC Assessment Reports (MBTOC 1998, 2002, 2006). Typically, 

equivalent effectiveness is achieved with 25 –50% lower methyl bromide dosage applied 

under LPBF compared with normal polyethylene containment films (See Tables 9.5 and 9.6). 

Recent advancements in the cost and technical performance of barrier films, especially 

metallised polyethylene films have reduced cost and extended their suitability for use with 

methyl bromide and also some of the alternatives. Previous difficulties with sealing and 

gluing barrier films are no longer seen as a technical impediment to implementation of barrier 

films as new application technologies (i.e. glues, polyethylene edges and perforated films) 

have solved earlier problems. 
86 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

The use of low permeability barrier films (VIF or equivalent) is compulsory in the 25 member 

countries of the European Union (EC Regulation 2037/2000). In other regions LPBF films are 

considered technically feasible and large adoption has occurred, e.g. Israel and SE USA. In 

Florida the reported use of barrier films in vegetable crops has expanded from 3000 acres 

2005/06 to 30,000 acres in 06/07 (Allen, pers. comm.). The exception is the State of 

California in the US however, where a regulation currently prevents use of VIF with MB 

(California Code of Regulations Title 3 Section 6450(e). This regulation has been set over 

concerns of possible worker exposure to MB when the film is removed or when seedlings are 

planted due to altered flux rates of MB. 

In 2003 and 2004 (TEAP 2003, 2004), MBTOC/TEAP evaluations of CUNs used 

conservative maximum allowable dosage rates for use with standard films and barrier films. 

Since then, high levels of success have been demonstrated in many countries at lower rates of 

methyl bromide with barrier films (Table 9.6). This information was used to set revised 

standard presumptions for dose rates of MB/Pic formulations that are effective in conjunction 

with use of barrier films. 

To assist the adoption of lower dosage rates, researchers, extension specialists, fumigators and 

farmers need to continue to build confidence in the effectiveness of lower dosage levels and 

optimise the methods based on range of pests and pest pressure and type of low permeability 

barrier films used in the field. Practical permeabilities for barrier films are identified by 

suppliers and offer MB users a wider range of opportunities for lowering MB dosages. 

9.3.2.6 Adjustments for standard dosage rates using MB/Pic formulations 

One key transitional strategy to reduce MB dosage has been the adoption of MB:Pic 

formulations with lower concentrations of methyl bromide (e.g. MB:Pic 50:50 or less). These 

formulations are considered to be equally as effective in controlling soilborne pathogens as 

formulations containing higher quantities of methyl bromide (e.g. 98:2, 67:33) (e. g. Porter et 

al., 1997; Melgarejo et al., 2000; Lopez-Aranda et al., 2003; Santos et al., 2007). 

Formulations containing high proportions of chloropicrin in mixtures with methyl bromide 

have been adopted widely by non-Article 5 countries to meet Montreal Protocol restrictions 

where such formulations are registered or otherwise permitted. Their use can be achieved 

with similar application machinery which allows co-injection of methyl bromide and 

chloropicrin or by use of premixed formulations. Consistent performance has been 

demonstrated with both barrier (Table 9.6, Fig. 9.1) and non barrier films. Parties are urged 

to consider lower dosage rates, i.e., as low as 75 kg/ha of 30:70 or 100 kg/ha of 50:50 MB/Pic 

in conjunction with barrier films as these have shown similar effectiveness to rates of 335 to 

800 kg/ha of MB 98% using standard polyethylene (Fig 9.1). 

9.3.2.7 Use of disposable canisters of MB 

One Party still used small disposable canisters (i.e. 500 to 750g canisters) for application of 

MB under plastic films. This practice is not considered as effective for pathogen control as 

use of MB/Pic mixtures and also leads to high emissions of methyl bromide. Canisters have 

been eliminated in most non- Article 5 countries as they were considered dangerous. 

According to the Party, canisters are used because they provide small-scale farmers with an 

easy application method and the ability to apply targeted amounts of MB to small areas where 

injection machinery may be difficult to use in these circumstances. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Table 9.6 Relative effectiveness of MB/Pic formulations applied in combination with low permeability barrier films c

MB/Pic formulation applied under standard low density polyethylene films

 Untreated Methyl Bromide/Chloropicrin Mixtures (Product rate per treated area) Std film Barrier Film - Relative yield compared to standard polyethylene Yield 

MB/Pic Formuln. 

Product Rate 

Not Spec 98:2 98:2 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 67:33 50:50 33:67

Country Region Commodity Brand or Type of 

Barrier Film 

 kg/ha 300 400 300 98 196 200 294 336 392 200 200 

Notes R

MB Dosage rate (g/m2) 392 294 66 131 134 197 225 263 100 66 Spain Vinderos Strawb. Runner VIF - NotSpec 74 50:50 400 93 

Navalmanzano 78 50:50 400 80 

Fusarium, Phytophthora, Pythium, Rhizoctonia and Verticillium 

Spain Vinderos Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec 68 50:50 400 114 102 

Navalmanzano 34 50:50 400 76 75 

Fusarium, Cladosporium, Rhizoctonia 

Spain Avitorejo Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 50:50 400 97 2003 results 

 Malvinas 50:50 400 99 

1998 Fusarium 

Spain Valencia Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 59 Not Spec 600 94 

 At 10cm & 30cm 

53 Not Spec 600 93 1999 results 

Spain Avitorejo Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 80 67:33 400 112 

Tariquejo 54 67:33 400 106 

Meloidogyne and weeds (unspec.) 

Spain Moguer/Cartaya Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec 50:50 392 99 

Inoculum not specified 

Spain Cabeza, Nav. Strawb. Runner VIF - Not Spec 74 67:33 400 105, 92 1998 Two sites 

Arevalo, Nav. 84 50:50 400 104, 104 

1999 results, nurseries 

Vinaderos, Nav. 49 50:50 400 95, 123 

2000 results, nurseries 

Spain Huelva Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 82 67:33 400 101 

1997-1998 Inoc.unspecified 

72 67:33 400 102 

1998-1999 Inoc. Unspecified 
88 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

68 67:33 400 109 

1999-2000 Inoc. Unspecified 

Spain Moncada Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 60 98:2 600 95 

54 98:2 600 91 

1998 No major pathogens but Fusarium buried 10cm&30cm. 

France Douville Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 65 Not Spec 800 99 

Inoculum not specified 

NZ Havelock North Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 83 67:33 500 98 

Phytophthora present 

USA Florida Pepper VIF Plastopil 69 67:33 392 78 Nutgrass 

VIF Plastopil 69 67:33 392 99 Present VIF Vikase 69 67:33 392 83 VIF Vikase 69 67:33 392 86 

USA Florida 

Strawb Fruit, Cantaloupe 

Barrier - Pliant, Metallised 

98:2 67:33 

 Trials on 18 Commercial Farms between 2000-2004; no increase in disease or weeds when rates reduced up to 50% under VIF wrt. Polyethylene 

Nutgrass and pathogens present 

USA California 72 67:33 336 108 

Inoculum not specified 

Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 

80 67:33 392 96 

USA Florida Tomato VIF - Not Spec 31 67:33 392 111 93 114 

Nutgrass and rootknot nematodes 

USA California Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 75 67:33 392 106 

83 67:33 392 111 65 67:33 392 102 

Watsonville, high pathogen pressure 

USA Florida Tomato VIF - Not Spec 67:33 392 "No significant reduction in yield" USA California Strawb. Fruit VIF - Not Spec 45 67:33 364 116  USA Florida VIF – not spec 392/ 196 O Unweighted averages (relative % yield) 66 94 99 93 93 102 103 108 104 91 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 89

Figure 9.1 Relative yield of crops (strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, cantaloupes) grown 

under barrier films with different MB/Pic formulations compared to the 

standard commercial treatment using standard polyethylene from trials 

between 1998 and 2004 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

MB dosage rate (kg/ha) under barrier film

Relative Yield 

(▲MB/Pic 98:2; ● MB/Pic 67:33; ♦ MB/Pic 50:50; ■ MB/Pic 33:67). Data from Table 9.6. 

9.3.2.8 Rate of adoption of alternatives 

MBTOC recognises that time is needed to effect phase-in of alternatives and accepts this as a 

reasonable technical argument for lack of availability to the user sensu Decision IX/6. 

Some CUNs in the 2007 round argued that time was required to allow the relevant industry to 

transition to available effective alternatives. Some CUNs showed a reduction in nominated 

quantity requested from that of the preceding year, reflecting progressive adoption of 

alternatives; while others had the same or even slightly increased quantities of MB nominated 

to the preceding CUNs. Some CUNs showed slow rates of adoption. In some cases, 

alternatives at varying stages of readiness for adoption were identified in the CUN and in 

others they were identified by MBTOC. In cases where adoption rates indicated by the Party 

were considered too slow because alternatives were available and had been adopted by users 

in the nominated region and similar industries elsewhere, MBTOC made an assessment for 

uptake of such alternatives. Data on the commercial use of soil alternatives shows that 

substantial adoption of alternatives in regions with similar pests and climates to those seeking 

CUNs has occurred within 4 years or less (e.g. many countries within the EC, Australia, USA 

with specific regions e.g. California). 

There is limited guidance and data available on what is a reasonable rate of transition to 

existing and available alternatives, though paragraph 35 of Annex I referred to in Decision 

XVI/4 states that “In situations where MBTOC recommends a nomination on grounds that it 

is necessary to have a period for adoption of alternatives, the basis for calculating the time 

period must be explained fully in the TEAP report and take fully into account the information 

provided by the nominating Party, the supplier, the distributor or the manufacturer. Relevant 

factors for such a calculation include the number of enterprises that need to transition, e.g., 

the number of fumigation and pest control companies, estimated training time assuming full 

effort, opportunities for importing alternative equipment and expertise if not available locally, 

and costs involved.” Since 2004, MBTOC has requested nominating Parties to provide the 
90 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

information listed in paragraph 35, for relevant CUNs, however no detailed information has 

been received. 

In the past, where several industries have been heavily dependent on MB, e.g. strawberries, 

tomatoes and other vegetable crops (e.g. Italy, Spain, Belgium, Portugal and other countries 

of the EC, Australia) almost complete adoption of alternative technologies (especially those 

requiring similar application technologies) has been achieved in a 3 to 4 year period. Theses 

regions have similar pests complexes to those requesting CUNs but may have different 

regulatory issues. Improved guidance from the Parties, giving expected rates of adoption of 

alternatives following registration, would assist MBTOC in evaluation of CUNs in future. 

Rates of adoption for various uses and alternatives have been considered by the European 

Commission in February 2006 as part of its National Management Plan. The report states that 

alternative fumigants were adopted at the rate of up to 2000 ha/year in sectors such as 

strawberry fruit (EC 2006). Adoption was achieved in periods of about 4 years for industries 

that were previously dependent on MB, for example the Italian and French tomato industries, 

or the strawberry fruit sectors of Italy, Spain and France. A new use (sweet potato production 

including nurseries) was presented by Israel; the nomination was explained as arising from 

unprecedented expansion in the sector and is envisaged for 2 years only, whilst a feasible 

alternative becomes registered. 

9.3.2.9 Sustainable Alternatives 

In a large proportion of the remaining CUNs, the most currently appropriate alternatives are 

chemical fumigant alternatives, which themselves, like MB, have issues related to their long 

term suitability for use. In both the EC and USA, MB and most other fumigants are involved 

in rigorous a review that could affect future regulations over their use. MBTOC urges Parties 

to consider the long term sustainability of treatments adopted as alternatives to MB, to 

continue to adopt chemical and non-chemical alternatives for the short to medium term and to 

develop sustainable IPM or non-chemical approaches for the longer term. In Europe most of 

the sectors that had CUNs have now adopted a wide range of both chemical and non-chemical 

alternatives, with the exception of several sectors (e.g. strawberry fruit in Spain which has 

adopted primarily chemical alternatives to date). Further work to develop non-chemical 

options, as well as additional chemical options, is continuing in Europe and elsewhere. 

Decision IX/6 1(a)(ii) refers to alternatives that are ‘acceptable from the standpoint of 

environment and health’. MBTOC has consistently interpreted this to mean alternatives that 

are registered or allowed by the relevant regulatory authorities in individual CUN regions. 

9.3.2.10 Frequency 

In the CUN round for 2007, reductions in MB for pre-plant soil use could be achieved in 

some nominations, where effective alternatives were identified, by reducing the frequency of 

MB fumigations. In some countries, present regulations already restrict the frequency of use 

of MB (e.g. to every second year) on similar crops and circumstances to those nominated by 

other Parties. MBTOC suggests that in these and other instances MB only be required every 

2, 3 or 4 years and suggests that Parties further consider reductions where appropriate. 

Alternation of pest control measures may also help provide or extend user confidence and 

experience in alternatives. New pest control measures may also be good agricultural practice, 

reducing risk of development of resistance and providing control of a wider spectrum of pests. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 91

9.3.3 Decisions Ex.I/4 (9d) and Decision XVII/9 (10) 

In response to Decision XVII/9 (10) of the MOP-17, MBTOC-S has reviewed, where 

possible, for each agreed critical use category, the amount of methyl bromide nominated by a 

Party, the amount of the agreed critical use and either: 

Since 2005, there has been a progressive trend by all Parties to reduce their consumption and 

CUN nominations for pre-plant soil use, although this has occurred at different rates. Fig. 9.2 

shows the trends in the reduction in amounts approved/nominated by Parties for ‘Critical Use’ 

from 2005 to 2009 in 2008 and 2009. 
92 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Figure 9.2(a-f ) Amounts of MB exempted for CUE uses in pre-plant soil industries from 

2005 to 2009. Solid lines indicate trend in CUE methyl bromide. Dashed lines indicate 

quantity of methyl bromide nominated by the party in either 2008 or 2009. 

Cucurbits and Melons

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

metric tonnes

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Japan

USA

Cutflow ers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

metric tonnes

Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA

Orchard replant

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

metric tonnes

France

USA

Peppers and Eggplant

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Years

metric tonnes

Belgium

France

Italy

Japan

Spain

USA

Straw berry Fruit

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

metric tonnes

Australia

France

Israel

Italy

New Zealand

Spain

United Kingdom

USA

Cutflow ers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Year

metric tonnes

Australia

Belgium

France

Greece

Israel

Italy

Portugal

Spain

USA
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 93

9.3.4 Interim evaluations of CUNs submitted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009 

9.3.4.1 Details of evaluations 

MBTOC/TEAP assessed the 43 CUNs for soils and recommended 28, with 15 placed in the 

‘unable to assess’ category. Details of the CUN submitted and recommendations are shown in 

Table 9.7 – 9.9. Two CUNs were only partially recommended with portions remaining 

‘unable to assess’. 

A total of 3183.406 tonnes of MB has been recommended, 996.746 for 2008 and 2186.660 for 

2009.

Tables 9.7 and 9.8 below provide further information on nominations received for 2008 and 

2009, including the number of nominations for each industry or sector, nominating Parties, 

amounts nominated and preliminary recommendations. 

In general, CUNs resulted mainly from the following issues: regulatory restrictions on one or 

two specific alternatives, scale up of alternatives, and economic issues. Unusually large 

buffer zone restrictions on fumigant alternatives particularly limit their adoption in one Party, 

Israel. For the most part technical alternatives exist, but uptake of alternatives varies between 

countries, crops and pest pressure. As in the previous round, Parties have found alternatives 

for propagation materials such as strawberry runners and nurseries more difficult to adopt. 

MBTOC has sometimes suggested quantities of MB for 2008 or 2009 different from those 

nominated. Grounds used for these changes are given in detail after the relevant CUNs in 

Table 9.9. The adjustments follow the standard presumptions given in Tables 9.4 and 9.5, 

unless indicated otherwise. 

Registration of key alternatives such as 1,3-D/Pic in Israel and the recent permits for methyl 

iodide use in Australia and USA are expected to impact the number of future nominations and 

their basis may become economic rather than technical. 

A number of recommendations on CUNs were not accepted by MOP-18, and this led to the 

full or partial restoration of the original CUN amount requested in the 2006 round. As 

MBTOC in most cases uses the technical information from the previous years CUE as the 

basis for its calculations of future nominations, it is important that Parties clearly present all 

technical calculations used to make adjustments to any nominations otherwise CUNs may be 

not assessable. 

Nominations were placed in the ‘unable to assess’ category where MBTOC found information 

insufficient as required under paragraph 10 of Annex 1 of the final report of MOP-16. For 

example, more information was required where a more specific characterisation of the 

cropping system and species was needed, where clarification of cropping areas impacted by 

regulatory control (e.g. township) was necessary or when justification as to why chemical or 

non chemical alternatives, or MB/Pic formulations with lower amounts of MB (e.g. 50:50, 

33:67), cannot be used under the circumstances of the nomination. 
94 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Table 9.7 Overview of CUNs received in 2007 for pre-plant soil use of Methyl Bromide 

(tonnes) and preliminary recommendations 

Country CUE Granted MBTOC-S Recommendation 

at MOP-18 

2008 CUN 

Request 

2009 CUN 

Request 

2008 2009 

Australia 35.75 29.790 29.790 

Canada 14.124 7.462 7.462 

EC 

(Poland, Spain) 

689.142 244.151 244.146 - 

Israel 933.315 950.245 848.795 752.6 

(a) 

Unable to 

Assess 

Japan 443.775 502.600 299.580 

USA 4806.723 4454.419 1849.828 (a) 

(a) a portion of the nominated amount is also classified as unable to assess pending further information. 

Table 9.8 General Crops/Uses for MB as per CUNs submitted in 2007 for 2008 and 2009 

Sector Key Target No of CUNs and Nominated (tonnes) 

Parties 2008 2009 

Strawberry Fruit Fungi,Nematode 

(Nutsedge) 

2 (US and Israel) 135.4 1461.3 

Strawberry Runners Fungi, Weeds 6 (AUS, Canada, 

Israel, USA, Poland, 

Spain) 

 263.7 46.1 

Tomato Nutsedge, Fungi, 

Nematode 

1 (USA) 1246.0 

Peppers Nutsedge, Fungi, 

Nematode 

2 (Japan, USA) 918.2 

Cucurbits Nutsedge, Fungi, 

Nematode 

6 (Japan, Israel, USA) 106.3 758.6 

Orchard Replant Fungi, Nematode, 

Bacteria 

1 (USA) 314.0 

Sweet potatoes/potatoes 

(including nurseries) 

Fungi, Nematode 3 (Israel, USA) 205.2 154.4 

Broomrape Parasitic Plant 1 (Israel) 250 250 

Propagative Material Fungi, Nematode 2 (USA forest 

nurseries, flower) 

 153.4 

Cut Flowers Fungi, Nematode 

Nutgrass (Israel) 

4 (USA, Spain, Israel) 233.7 346.3 

Ginger Fungi (Pythium) 2 (Japan) 115.1 

Eggplant Nutsedge, Fungi, 

Nematode 

1 (USA) 62.8 

Research Trials evaluating 

comparisons with MB 

12 (1 Spain, I Japan, 

11 US) 

 0.151 22 

Table 9.9 includes all evaluations of CUNs made in the interim report on the 2007 round of 

nominations. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Table 9.9 Interim evaluations of CUNs for pre-plant soil use submitted in 2007 for 2008 or 2009 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Strawberry runners 

35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 None non

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 29.79 tonnes for this use in 2009. The key pests affecting strawberry runner pRhizoctonia, Verticillium) and weeds (S. arvensis, Agrostis tenuis, Raphanus, Poa annus, Cyperus). The CUN states that meet certification standards. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 20 g/m2 but this rate is not cexamining the efficacy of a rate of 125 kg/ha (12.5 g/m2) of MB using LDPE films. The Party states that the most promisinphytotoxic due to the heavy and wet soil in cold climate growing conditions. The CUN provided recent data from specific lothat resulted in a doubling of the time required before planting compared to MB, problems with weed control and inconsistyields]. Other alternatives tested included MS, dazomet, PIC, steam, hot water and solarization. The Party reported that alternative, but that the costs associated with this technology are too high and they result in 10% lower yields than bare-roemissions 10-fold when compared with standard LDPE films, but off gassing issues when lifting tarps after 4 days posed a Party notes that two currently unregistered alternatives appear promising – methyl iodide and ethane dinitrile, and that meup permit for 2007 to 2009. MBTOC encourages the Party to (1) expedite the use of the MB/Pic 50:50 formulation at 25 g/registration of the two alternatives as quickly as possible.

Australia 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prof lack of technically feasible alternatives in circumstances in Australia. Strawberry runners (PEI) 

6.840 6.840 7.995 7.462 

MBTOC recommends 7.462 tonnes for this use in 2009. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are weeds MB/Pic 67:33 at a dose of 500 kg/ha (50 g/m2) is required to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners. MBTg/m2) with low permeability barrier films (LPBF) for propagative materials. The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standarMBTOC’s standard presumption are not currently registered and therefore cannot be used commercially to treat soils. ThMBTOC recommended rate of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) with LPBF, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency would require thdemonstrate that the rate would be effective. The Party has attempted to replace MB with 1,3-D, but 1,3-D was banned in contamination. Chloropicrin has recently been provisionally registered in Canada, but has yet to receive a permit from Prinnomination has not yet trialled this alternative. Nor has the sector trialled low permeability barrier films (LPBF). MBTOC enecessary for use of chloropicrin and dazomet, (2) implement the use of LPBF which are currently used worldwide and (3becoming available, conduct the necessary trials to support a lower application rate of MB to conform with MBTOC’s stan

Canada 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements peconomic data. CUN is based on technical feasibility reasons.
96 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Broomrape None none 250.000 250.000 250MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 250 tonnes for this use in 2008 and is unable to assess the nomination for 20land rehabilitation of 1000 ha in the Upper Galilee and the Golan Heights. A large area, 5700 ha are severely infested with produce tomatoes in these regions. The recommended CUE is based on a dose of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of MB/Pic 98:2 uregion and the treatment is expected to bring the pathogen population below the disease threshold allowing for adoption osome alternatives for controlling low infestations of orobanche (e.g. sulfosulfuron, solarization) but they are considered noO. aegyptiaca. Additionally, the Party expects some alternatives (1,3-D/Pic, sequential application of 1,3-D and metham s2007or 2008 and these could impact on future nominations. MBTOC acknowledges that a registration for chloropicrin is bpossibly allow for lower dosages of MB to be used for orobanche in the absence of other effective alternatives. 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemebroomrape infestation is aggravated by the phase out of MB, as registered alternatives do not prevent area-wide infestatioagrotechnical means, long-term fallow cropping and biological control, which in practice and in economic terms do not copand their gradual germination mechanism. CUN also states that prospects for the registration of Imazapic are low and the effectiveness of its registration, might refrain from its further development. Further, soil solarization, usually applied on inteextensive outdoor crops.Cucumber – protected 

none none 25.000 18.750 18.

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 18.750 tonnes for 2008 and is unable to assess this nomination for 2009. Cuc3 cropping cycles per annum in the proximity of the residential houses of cooperative family and private family farms. A laconcentrated in one village (Achituv), where the growers specialized for years in the cultivation of indoor cucumbers for thcropping cycles, solutions were found despite the monoculture production pattern, which reflects the specialization of the pressure from soil-borne pathogens. Additional reasons for this nomination are the appearance of a new race of a fungusbuffer zone limitations on the use of the MS+1,3-D mixtures. The pathogen is highly virulent and the infestation level particdevastate entire greenhouses in a short period of time. MBTOC requested whether this was a contingency use for this pathe Party. MBTOC encourages the Party to consider the technical and economical feasibility of non-chemical alternatives in use in many parts of the world for this crop. The nominated amount is based on a dosage of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:reduction technologies. MBTOC further encourages the Party to revise buffer zone regulations in light of the current geneto conduct a thorough review of the technically feasible use and economic cost of low cost substrate systems for future no

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemencosts of grafted seedlings are a limiting factor because the technology in cucumbers is in its infancy in Israel. Furthermoreeconomically feasible due to its high prices and its low efficacy in the winter in Israel when prevailing soil temperatures are 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

cutflowers - bulbs - protected 

303.000 240.000 220.185 163.400 114

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 114.45 tonnes for this use in 2008 and is unable to assess for 2009. The nomunder cover, which are mainly affected by weeds (Cyperus in particular) and nematodes (root-knot but also ectoparasites not recommend the use of 1.8 tonnes for fumigating substrates used in rose production as alternatives such as steam are amount requested for carnations grown in Ghaza to conform to the standard presumptions of 350 kg/ha (35 g/m2) of MB/Pkey pest affecting carnations in the Ghaza region. Lack of registration of key alternatives and chloropicrin mixtures continualternatives, which have been identified as technically feasible. MBTOC considers that adoption of substrate production is carnations outside the Ghaza area. A 25% transition rate has been applied for adoption of this alternative in the 104 ha gfeasible alternative for other flower types but the Party states that it is economically unfeasible (economic information provsodium are also available and a further 25% reduction was applied for phase-in of these alternatives in those flowers not sencourages the Party to seek registration of alternatives that have been identified as promising through research such as application methods and equipment which have proven to be economically feasible in other countries. MBTOC requests tthe envisaged registration of key alternatives could impact this nomination. 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prbudgets for MB and the next best alternatives. The net revenue for the next best alternatives is negative in all cases. CUN not cost effective. Some net revenue analysis was reported in 2006 round of CUNs. Cutflowers - open field 

77.000 67.000 74.540 53.345 44.

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 44.75 tonnes for this nomination in 2008 and is unable tthe Party (250 kg/ha or 25 g/m2 of 98:2 formulation) conforms with MBTOC's standard presumptions. The nomination is fomainly affected by weeds (Cyperus in particular) and nematodes (root-knot but also ectoparasites such as Longidorus) anon flowers such as 1,3-D+Pic, dazomet and metham sodium, continue to be the major constraints affecting substitution of chloropicrin content are also not registered. However MBTOC estimates that, solarisation, plate steaming, substrates and for 25% reduction in the amount nominated. This reduction is not applied to the 18.95 t requested for nurseries of geophytproduced, although no certification issues are involved. MBTOC encourages the Party to seek registration of alternatives requests the Party to submit a new nomination for 2009 as possible registration of alternatives could impact this nominatio

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prand solarization are not cost effective while the economic assessment refers the reader to the indoor flowers CUN. Howevindoor flowers is insufficient.
98 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Melon - protected and field 

125.650 99.400 105.000 87.500 87.

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a CUE for 87.5 tonnes for this use for 2008 and is unable to assess the nominthe key pathogen in the Arava Valley. Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. melonis and root-knot nematodes, mainly M. javanica, alrate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of 98:2 MB under barrier films (LDPF) complies with MBTOC's standard presumptions. MBTO100% of the fall melons grown in the Arava valley and including metham sodium, dazomet, solarization, Formaldehyde+MThe CUN is solely for the winter crop as the alternatives do not control the key pathogens and the plant back time is too sby 12% by the Party, with respect to the 2007 amount approved. MBTOC considers alternatives, such as substrates, graftalternatives and notes recent studies which may assist transition to alternatives (Pivonia et al 2002, 2004). MBTOC notes used for Monosporascus in other countries under similar conditions (eg. Stanghellini et al. 2003; Martyn 2002). The Party the technically feasible use and economic cost of low cost substrate systems for future nominations. 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prbudgets for the next best alternatives. The net revenue for the next best alternatives is negative. Potato 239.000 165.000 137.500 93.750 93.MBTOC recommends 93.75 tonnes of MB for this use in 2008 and is unable to assess the nomination for 2009. Potatoes Sharon and Ghaza regions where intensive cropping of groundnuts and potato occur in the same year and infestation with parasitic and perennial weeds take place, some of them common to the two predominant crops: Rhizoctonia solani, VertiMeloidogyne javanica, common scab (Streptomyces scabies), deep scab- (Streptomyces spp.), powdery scab (Spongospnutsedge. Volunteer potato plants in the succeeding crop may carry PVY type viruses.The Party has made a 31.8% reducMOP for 2007. The dosage rate of 250 kg/ha (25 g/m2) of MB 98:2 conforms to MBTOC's standard presumptions. The nosubjected to high health standards and regular crop production which is normally achieved without MB worldwide in locatiapplicant identified that 550 of 15,000 ha are located in highly populated areas where winter production occurs, pathogens place for feasible alternatives such as 1,3 D + Pic (61:35) which as a result of buffer zones prohibit their use. The party inddevelopment for the pest complexes and that they are transitioning to these. The CUN indicates that new technologies armetham sodium and formaldehyde. MBTOC notes that there are effective alternatives but that their use is affected by buffcountries (for 1,3-D stated as 250m compared to 31m in USA for example). MBTOC urges the Party to consider review ofilms. The continuing reduction of requested amounts of methyl bromide is an indication that this strategy is successful. 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements pranalysis
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Strawberry fruit – protected(Sharon and Ghaza)

196.000 196.000 93.000 none 64.125 

+ 71.250 for Ghaza 

U 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC is unable to assess the nomination, pending further information from the Party. The key pe(Rhizoctonia solani, Colletotrichum acutatum, Macrophomina phaseolina, Verticillium dahliae, Fusarium spp.), nematodes rotundus,purple nutsedge). In 2004 a fungal disease, Macrophomina phaseolina was newly reported in the area and is coCUN states that 1,3-D/Pic is registered and has been used on part of the crop but further adoption is limited to 20% of the requested to provide technical data to quantify the impact of buffer zones. The buffer zones for 1,3-D/pic are unusually larUSA, for example), and it is desirable for these buffer zones to be examined in the light of LPBF or VIF. No other fumiganconsiders that soilless systems are effective in greenhouses, tunnels or plastic cloches (López-Medina et al., 2004; Lieten2006). Substrates have been used on a small area in this CUN, but the Party states that further uptake is limited by cost astrategic goal of this sector for the future after 2010. The CUN used old data on MB prices, so MBTOC requests updated substrate systems. MBTOC encourages the applicant to continue adopting low-cost substrate systems which are used in al. 2006; Vos and Bridge, 2006; MBTOC, 2007; Sonneveld, 2004; Lieten, 2004). Substrates have been adopted at the ratMediterranean climates (EC 2006). MBTOC considers that the transition to alternatives will be assisted by reducing the indiseases) arising from nursery runner production, improved cultural practices to reduce pathogen pressure, and greater usubmitted for re-registration, dazomet + barrier film and dazomet + short solarisation are effective for the major pests affethat are 92 - 108% of yields obtained with MB (Ausher, 2004; Lopez-Aranda 2001, 2003, 2004; Pietr, 2002; IR-4 2000; YüParty to provide information about plans for registering alternative chemicals and transitioning to alternatives such as low-cultivars, registered nematicides and fungicides, cultural practices or other relevant techniques. 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prevenue using MB is lower than for the alternatives. Dazomet and 1,3 D/pic provided net revenues that were 70% and 53% that the registered chemical alternatives carry environmental costs [although this also applies to MB]. CUN also states tha2010 due to the high costs of the capital-intensive versions considered in the CUN. 
100 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Strawberry runners (Sharon and Ghaza)

None none 0.000 36.625 31.

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 31.9 tonnes for 2008 (11.9 t for Ghaza Strip and 20 t for Shnomination for 2009.. The key pests affecting strawberry runner production are fungi (Rhizotonia solani, Verticillium dahliasclerotiorum, Macrophomina phasoeolina), root knot nematodes, purple nutsedge. The Party stated that MB 98:2 at a rate (25 g/m2) with barrier films are necessary to meet certification standards. The requested amount for the Ghaza region has presumption of 35 g/m2 for 98:2 MB. The Party stated that 1,3-D + PIC mixture has been the leading alternative; howeverrequired 250 m buffer which significantly limits its use in the Sharon strawberry nursery growing area which is heavily popthe Ghaza Strip growing area because the plots are small, adjacent to houses and there are no injection tools or qualified in the Ghaza strip will be tested with barrier films with a reduced application rate. MBTOC encourages faster adoption of area in Sharon uses barrier films (VIF). 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prrestrictions and lack of technically feasible alternatives.Sweet Potatoes None none none 111.5 111MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 111.5 tonnes of MB for 2008 and is unable to assess this nomination for 2009potato requiring high health and regular crop production. The key pests affecting sweet potatoes are root-knot nematodesand Pythium spp. The applicant identified that MB is the only registered chemical for use for sweet potato production in Isconsistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptions under VIF. The party indicates that the only effective control alternative tnot currently registered for sweet potato. It is expected to receive registration by 2008. The applicant indicates that a 50% and MBTOC recognizes that this is an effective rate of uptake of an alternative. MBTOC notes there are numerous nematand these are widely used in countries where nematodes are the primary pest problem (Bello A., pers. comm.). MBTOC sIsrael be investigated. 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements probe economically feasible alternatives but these need to be verified.
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 51.450 none nonMBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 34.30 tonnes for 2009 as a transition amount making pa2011. The recommended quantity represents a 33% reduction from the CUE amount for 2008 approved at MOP-18. MBTbased on the need to control particular viruses of cucumber, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soilfor several years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practremoval and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogesituations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawbe(Matsuo and Suga, 1993). As a transition strategy, MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for nomination the 1,3-D/Pic mixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urgethis mixture in some cucumber production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for cucumber in Japan whin many countries cucumber production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the marray of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of pro(Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). The Party is ewhich implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes howevecritical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can bperiod of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). The CUN states that the Aichi Agricultural Reseof KGMMV control by methyl iodide in pot tests. MBTOC encourages the Party to continue to pursue the registration of meregistered for imported timber in Japan in 2004, under JMAFF registration No. 21407). 

Japan 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemenprovided shows a reduction in net revenue of more than 90% in capital-intensive soilless systems. As a result capital-inteneconomically feasible. 
102 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Ginger (field) 119.400 119.400 109.701 84.075 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 63.056 tonnes for this use in 2009 as a transition amount making part of a 4 yrecommended amount has been reduced 25% from the CUE approved amount for 2008 at MOP18 in 2008 as alternatives control of Pythium spp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) in ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from several times with no change in production and cultural practices to minimize disease. MBTOC conducted a field visit to JAugust 2006 and recognized the difficulties that growers have in adopting some alternatives, however dazomet is consideeconomically feasible. Difficulties in applying dazomet occur during wet and cold weather which sometimes cause phytotoreduced crop yields. Chloropicrin is registered in Japan but the Party states that the plant back time for chloropicrin is 40 dresult in delays in planting and lower yields compared to MB treatment. MBTOC urges the Party to encourage adoption of proportion of pic which would allow for reduced rates of MB. Further, metham sodium and dazomet can be used more effiindicates that metalaxyl combined with dazomet is highly effective for managing Pythium diseases but does not refer to cudate, organic amendments (Smith et al 1988) or fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as phosphonates. MBTOC kindly trials with alternatives and a detailed prospect for relevant fumigant\pesticide registration during 2007-2009 be submitted w

Japan 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemennet revenue for the next best alternative (dazomet) is negative, because of a 58% decline in yield. As a result dazomet is Ginger (protected) 

22.900 22.900 14.471 11.100 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 9.675 tonnes for this use in 2009 as a transition amount making part of a 4 yr recommended amount has been reduced 25% from the CUE approved amount for 2008 at MOP-18 as alternatives are coof Pythium spp. (Pythium ultimum var. ultimum, Pythium zingiberium) in ginger fields using MB (98:2) applied from small cseveral times with no change in production and cultural practices to minimize disease. MBTOC conducted a field visit to JAugust 2006 and recognized the difficulties that growers have in adopting some alternatives, however dazomet (Basamideconomically feasible. Under protected production conditions, difficulties arising with dazomet during wet, cold conditions can be controlled in protected environments. This would make plant back times more reasonable. MBTOC therefore consuse of dazomet much more quickly. Chloropicrin is registered in Japan but the Party states that the plant back time for chlscheduling and result in delays in planting and lower yields compared to MB treatment. MBTOC urges the Party to encourwith a higher proportion of Pic that allow for reduced rates of MB.The CUN states that metalaxyl does not control Pythium have been reported. The Party indicates that metalaxyl combined with dazomet is highly effective for managing Pythium dsuch as soil drainage, sowing date, organic amendments (Smith et al 1988) or fungicides specific to Oomycetes, such as updated information relating to trials with alternatives and a detailed prospect for relevant fumigant\pesticide registration dnominations. 

Japan 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemennet revenue for the next best alternative (Hot water treatment) is positive but 75% less then the net revenue for MB. As a feasible. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 136.650 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 91.1 tonnes for 2009 as a transition amount making part 2011. The recommended quantity represents a 33% reduction from the CUE approved amount for 2008 at MOP-18. MBTbased on the need to control a particular virus of melon, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soilbornseveral years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogesituations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawbe(Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by umixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urges the Party to conduct demmixture in melon production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for melon in Japan which has been in psome melon production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most widely used soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of production aand Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate productihigher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conducted in Jap(Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substrates there and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systems in a shprojects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004). 

Japan 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemenprovided states that resistant varieties (used alone) result in a 70% decrease in net revenue. The yield of the soilless cultuproduct is lower because of problems of appearance and uniformity of the fruit. As a result the gross income for this systecapital-intensive soilless culture are higher hence net income is lower. As a result resistant varieties and capital-intensive 
104 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Pepper (green & hot) 

187.200 190.700 156.700 121.723 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 81.149 tonnes for 2009 as a transition amount making p2011. The recommended quantity represents a 33% reduction from the CUE approved amount for 2008 at MOP-18. MBTbased on the need to control particular viruses of peppers, since 2005. Globally, such viruses are not considered as soilboseveral years. The problem mainly arises from continuous monoculture. An integrated program including cultural practices removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sanitation of the greenhouse and the surrounded area, and pathogesituations around the world. The Party has indicated that rotation to non-susceptible hosts such as tomatoes and strawbe(Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Party to increase adoption of LPBF which allow for reducing MB doses by umixture has become registered, however, farmers fear possible phytotoxicity. MBTOC thus urges the Party to conduct demmixture in pepper production. MBTOC recognises the unique farming system used for peppers in Japan which has been icountries some pepper production has already shifted to substrates in greenhouse conditions and has become the most warray of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems (buckets, bags, etc.) are available for this kind of pro(Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; Akkaya & Ozkan, 2004; Engindeniz, 2004). Substrate pproduce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 2000, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002). Studies conductoption (Fukuda and Anami 2002, Sakuma and Suzuki 1995 ). MBTOC notes however that even when growing in substratesanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbers of growers can be trained to use substrates systemany MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004) 

Japan 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemenprovided shows that the higher cost of soilless culture is largely due to the higher cost of seeds, fertilizers, depreciation anlower costs of pesticides and insurance in capital-intensive systems. Given these data, the net revenue for capital-intensiveconomically feasible. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Watermelon 129.000 98.900 94.200 32.475 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 21.65 tonnes for 2009. The nomination has been reducMOP-18 to allow for a 3 year transition to alternatives. MBTOC acknowledges that the Party has made a substantial redureflects a marked transition to alternatives. The nomination is based on the need to control particular viruses of watermeloconsidered as soilborne pathogens but can survive in crop debris for several years. The problem mainly arises from continincluding cultural practices e.g. sanitation, rotation with a non-host, removal and destruction of crop debris, cleaning and sarea, and pathogen free seeds has proven very effective in similar situations around the world. The Party has indicated thtomatoes and strawberries is an effective way to reduce virus incidence (Matsuo and Suga, 1993). MBTOC urges the Parreducing MB doses by up to 50%. Since the last nomination the 1,3-D/pic mixture has become registered, however, farmeurges the Party to conduct trials on the correct use of this mixture in watermelon production. MBTOC recognises the uniquwhich has been in place for many years. However, in many countries watermelon production has already shifted to substrthe most widely used technique for eliminating a wide array of soilborne plant pathogens. Inexpensive and simple systems of production and are widely used in around the world. (Leoni & Ledda, 2004; Budai, 2002; Savvas and Passam 2002; AkSubstrate production, when implemented correctly can produce higher yields than MB (MBTOC, 2002, 2006; Batchelor 20conducted in Japan support soilless culture as a feasible option (Fukuda and Anami 2002, , Sakuma and Suzuki 1995). Msubstrates there is a critical need for a high degree of sanitation and for the use of pathogen free transplants. Large numbsystems in a short period of time as experienced in many MLF projects (UNEP/TEAP, 2004) 

Japan 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. The economic evidence prthan 50%. As a result soilless culture is not economically feasible.Strawberry runners 

40.000 40.000 24.500 12.000 11.

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced CUE of 11.995 tonnes for this nomination in 2008. The key pests a(Verticillium dahliae, Phytophthora cactorum, P. fragariae, Fusarium oxysporum), and nematodes (Globodera rostochiensMB of 400 kg/ha with barrier films are needed to meet the certification standards for strawberry runners. The Party’s CUN recommended for 2007 (24.5 t). The requested amount has been adjusted to account for the Party’s inclusion of the entire instead of the MB portion only (392 kh/ha (39.2 g/m2)). The Party’s request exceeds MBTOC’s standard presumption of 2formulations enabling the use of these rates are currently not registered. The Party tested a reduced rate [MB/Pic 300 kg/that plant vigor, productivity and weed control were too low in the low soil temperatures prevailing during autumn fumigatioD & Pic and Pic alone are not currently registered. While dazomet and metham sodium are registered, their slow decompspring has precluded expanded use due to production timing using currently available application equipment. Poland has application equipment such as rotary spader machines which enhance efficiency of metam sodium and dazomet (Runia aencourages the Party to expedite the adoption of this new application equipment and encourage the registration of Pic an

Poland 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements pr17-18) shows 11 percent yield loss with dazomet and 80 percent loss with metam sodium when applied by traditional metdecrease of 54% in year 1, then 10% loss in year 2, and an increase of 7 % over MB in year 3. The increases in net revenfirst year, and is expected that Dazomet will be economically feasible in 3 years.
106 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Cut flowers (Andalucia and Catalonia) 

53 + 20 42 + 15 43.490 17.000 17.

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 17 t for this use in 2008 (12t for Andalusia and 5t for Catalonia). This request approved for 2007. The key pests are weeds, particularly Cyperus spp., nematodes such as Meloidogyne spp and in the cproportion of the nomination, Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. dianthi. The Party states that in spite of longer plantback times bedifficulties encountered when using alternatives (e.g. higher costs and technical requirements when using substrates), full 2008. 

Spain 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prpresents economic disadvantages because of the longer waiting period, longer application period and changes required in while 1,3-D + Chloropicrin leads to a loss of yield and steam has economic disadvantages. CUN argues that capital-intensbecause of the cost. CUN states that substrates require high investment and increases the costs of the crop. Adoption neand is expensive. CUN cites data that show that an investment of 270,455 € is necessary on an area of 5,000 m2, and the CUN also states that the transformation cost for the industry in Catalonia is estimated at more than 108 million € if they adStrawberry runners 

230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 215

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends the 215 tonnes be approved for this use in 2008. The key pests affecting straw(Phytophthora, Rhizoctonia, Verticillium) and weeds (Chenopodium, Portulacca oleracea, Senecio, Solanum, Cynodon daat a dose of 300 kg/ha (30 g/m2) is required to meet the EU Nursery Plant Certification and Control Regulations. The cold nurseries in Spain substantially limit the feasibility of alternatives (1,3-D/PIC, dazomet, MS, DMDS) to control target pests Party claims that there is no technically feasible alternative available at this time. The Party’s strategy to minimize MB use MBTOC encourages the Party to expedite the next steps in their application rate reduction program using lower MB/Pic apformulation in conjunction with LPBF and continue to pursue the registration of additional alternatives. 

Spain 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements procosts and net revenue of alternatives to MB, but not that of MB itself. CUN states that yields of alternatives are 14% to 16Strawberry and Pepper 

None none 0.080 0.080 0.151 0.1

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 0.151 tonnes for research purposes. The CUN states that MB is needed as thNational Project. In particular, studies on the environnmental effects of some fumigants applied to soils are being conductfor MB for pepper and strawberry fruit production in 2008. The 29.6 kg are specifically requested for strawberry research tkg will be used in studying the environmental effects of chemical soil fumigants in soil (strawberry cultivation). These trials use and adoption of alternatives to MB in strawberries and pepper that was approved by the party last year for the period 

Spain 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements pinformation as it does not apply to the particular nature of the nomination.
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Cucurbits 1187.800 747.839 592.891 486.757 MBTOC comments: MBTOC is unable to assess this nomination for use in 2009. The nomination refers to all cucurbit crothe Party to disaggregate the nomination by crop (eg watermelon, melon, cucumber, zucchini, etc.). The reason is that wdiffer in the perspective of management options. In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsici and Fusarium. MBTmay be an effective alternative but growers will miss the optimal market window due to longer plant back times. According autumn because of the bad climatic conditions. In addition, a fall application of a methyl bromide is not feasible because, oanimals damage the plastic and irrigation tape. In SE and Georgia, the key pest is nutsedge. Karst topography limits affeDichloropropene, which are the best alternatives for these pests. The Party states that metam sodium or metam potassium provide consistent control under the circumstances of the nomination and require further trialling. In addition, the Party staMB/Pic formulations such as 50:50 as there are no regulatory restrictions to the use of these formulations. The main reasonutsedge. 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effective alternative but growers will miss the optimal market window (only in Michchanges of MB/Pic to achieve the reductions of MB dosage were stated by the party in the past, but were not clearly demoParty states yield losses for alternatives which do not conform with published literature. Modifications of formulations, for eversions of LPBF, (eg.VIF and metalized films) have been widely tested since 2000 in the US and have shown equivalenthe commercial dosage rate. The Party states that trials are underway to investigate lower MB/Pic formulations such as 50use of these formulations. However, the party did not provide data regarding the adoption of these formulations or LPBF that metam sodium or metam potassium are also promising alternatives but still do not provide consistent control under thfurther trialling. In addition, the nomination for 2009 is lower that of 2008, but still is high to meet the scale of phaseout. As received from the Party prior to this assessment is was not assessable. Further assessment will be conducted once these 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: Part of the nomination for Michigan, Maryland and Delaware were based on economin CUN: The CUN states next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percepercent in South Eastern States and Georgia. CUN states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Micaddition to the yield loss, delayed planting and harvest with the alternatives results in lower average price received from mrevenue. In remaining regions yield losses significantly reduce net revenues. In Maryland and Delaware, 1,3-D with chlorois constrained by water table concerns, land low soil temperatures leading to reduced yields and missed market windows. lower prices because of missed market windows. 
108 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Eggplant (field) 76.712 81.162 85.363 66.018 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 48.691tonnes for this use in Georgia, Florida and Michigan in 2009 which inclstated that it based its nomination on MBTOCs standard maximum dosage rates of MB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha (17.for pathogens with adoption of LPBF and also made an adjustment for strip fumigation based on 0.58 of the area treated. alternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending. In Michigan, the key pests are Phytophthora capsici and fusarium. According to irrigation water in Michigan and occurred after soil treatment with Telone C35 and metham sodium, however MBTOC confumigants, including methyl bromide. MBTOC recognizes the Party’s statement that 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effective market window due to longer plant back times with this alternative. According to the Party, this treatment cannot be applieaddition, a fall application of methyl bromide is not feasible because over the fall and winter months deer and other animaMBTOC considers that their are alternatives in other countries that should be considered for use in this region including gmodifications to the application of 1,3-D/Pic with and without metham sodium may reduce plant back times. In Florida, the Phytophthora, nematodes, Pythium and Sclerotinia. In Georgia the key pests are yellow and purple nutsedge, Phytophthosclerotinia. Karst topography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, which are the best alternativacreage in Florida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party claims that research on alternatives for peppers could be transition in 2009 for Florida and Georgia and no transition for Michigan, and stated it will take more than 7 years to transiconsiders that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst areas in Florida and Georgia (1,3-D/Pic, Pic alone, mtrifluralin) (Noling et al 2006; Chellemi et al. 2006; Simonne et al. 2006) for areas of moderate pest pressure at least. MBTregions by 25%, which is in line with the 26% transition suggested by the Party in 2006. MBTOC requests that the Party pof feasibility of some key alternatives used for eggplants in other countries, such as grafted plants and the key chemical aalternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4 years or less in many countries e.g Spain, ItalyTostovrsnik et al 2005; Minuto et al, 2003; Thanassoulopoulos, 2006). MBTOC also notes that Ristaino and Johnson (19(2002), Driver and Lows (2003) , Hausbeck and Lamour (2004) and others have reported many efficient management straMichigan including 3-4 years crop rotation with non susceptible hosts (carrots, beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfdensity, soil amendments, protective mulch and raised beds) and use of registered fungicides in Michigan (Mefonoxan, DCopper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metalaxyl control Phytophthora during seed germinationpest, nutsedge, 1,3-D/pic 65:35 with and without VIF and MNa/Pic provided similar yields as MB/Pic 67:33 in 3 trials over (Santos, et al, 2005) even with moderate to severe nutsedge infestations. Recent studies continue to confirm the benefits means to reduce emissions and dose rate of MB (Ou et al 2006). MBTOC considers that further reductions in MB amount 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments. Economic next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan and 29 pewith chloropicrin is considered technically feasible in Michigan. However, CUN noted that for Michigan in addition to the yialternatives results lower average price received from missed market windows and negative net revenue. In Florida and Grevenues. CUN notes Florida and Georgia producers may also experience lower prices because of missed market window
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Forest nursery 192.515 157.694 122.032 131.208 MBTOC comments: MBTOC is unable to assess this nomination for this use in 2009. MBTOC requires further clarificatiostudies are not considered effective treatments and whether these can be used under the certification rules. In the absenformulations of MB/Pic 67:33 suitable for the whole of the nomination in conjunction with barrier films and is requesting whrequirements if required. MBTOC also considers that time is available to overcome the issues of gluing sheets. MBTOC rvery high level of soilborne pest and pathogen control in order to avoid widespread distribution of pests and pathogens fronomination is for certified forest seedlings. This nomination is for 2% of the total forest nursery crop area. The CUN is basand the lack of effective alternatives for control of nutsedge and a range of fungal pathogens and nematodes. It covers ceregions. The key alternatives are 1,3-D/Pic, 1,3-D/Pic/metam sodium, metham sodium and Pic, and dazomet as a follow-unotes that recent studies show that Pic, and metham sodium and chloropicrin have given equivalent performance to meth2007, South 2007), however dazomet has resulted in reduced seedling growth compared to MB (Enebak et al., 2006 (MBwhen used in conjunction with LPBF, may provide an effective technical alternative and avoid crop injury. MBTOC recognSignificant Changes' that technical problems still exist when gluing VIF for broadcast applications, however MBTOC consovercome. MBTOC also considers glyphosate can be used as a pre-treatment to reduce pressure from nutgrass and 1,3-further evaluated for control of nutsedge as results in trials have been promising (Culpepper and Langston, 2004). MBTOthat time for transition may be required. Limited substrate production of these crops is economical for small niche marketsyears, depending on crop. Rotation and cover crops are not fumigated. Research is on-going to reduce rates from 98:2 Mpopulations are severe to using reduced rates of 67:33 MB/Pic. LBPF films have been conducted on a broadacre basis in be available to the USA. LPBF will be adopted when the effective gluing technologies are locally, commercially available. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prmajor alternatives in six regions: 1,3-D/Pic, dazomet, and metham sodium with Pic. The CUN reports yield losses of 3 to net revenue declines with these alternatives ranged from 8% to 53%. The CUN cites an analysis of the costs of containercontainerized production is not economically feasible. Nurseries stock (fruit, nut, flower)

45.800 64.528 28.275 51.102 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC is unable to assess the portion of the CUN that refers to raspberries. MBTOC recommends t for roses, 13.626 t for fruit trees and 1.506 t for research. The Party has clarified that the amount nominated for raspberron 47ha however, MBTOC requires information on the proportion of the raspberry nomination that is grown in Washington portion of the nomination. Previously, MBTOC understood that all raspberry production was in Washington and not subjecMB with VIF that are present in California. It is essential to establish the percentage of the raspberry nursery production thcertified propagation material, which is mandatory for California and voluntary in Washington (but without certification the loss of the crop if nematodes or pathogens are found). 1,3-D is an approved certified nursery treatment under specific crolimited by regulatory restrictions (Township Caps in CA). Limited substrate production of these crops is economical for smcontainerization is not economical. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements pranalysis was not done because the alternatives are not technically feasible, particularly for certification needs and so no elarge scale use of substrates is not economically feasible. 
110 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Orchard replant 706.176 527.600 405.400 393.720 MBTOC comments: MBTOC is unable to assess this renomination at this time. The CUN is for 3 situations: Orchard/vineheavy soils or soils which cannot be dried to a sufficient depth to effectively use the reduced rates of 1,3-D now allowed in prevent the use of 1,3-D. Regulatory restraints (maximum label rate) prevent the use of 1,3-D at the rates needed for effepathogens in deeper soil layers for heavier (fine-textured) soils. Three alternatives,1,3-D alone and 1,3-D combined with ctechnical for treatment in light soils. Although a two year fallow was found to be effective under Mediterranean conditions found that a three year fallow did not sufficiently eliminate the causative nematodes. MBTOC notes and questions the largMB/Pic 98:2 used for California Stone fruit of 204 kg/ha (20.4 g/m2), Raisin grapes 310 kg/ha (31 g/m2), Wine grapes 350 and Almonds 123 kg/ha (12.3 g/m2) and request an explanation of this extreme spread. MBTOC considers the MB/Pic 67pathogens and nematodes. Commercial adoption of this formulation and others containing lower amounts of MB (eg. 50:5treatment in other countries before switching to alternatives. Results obtained with MI/Pic 50:50 mixtures (Lampinen et al, the efficacy of 67:33 MB/Pic (and MB/Pic 50:50 mixture) as MB and MI are quite similar. MBTOC requests the Party to pro67:33 for replant disorder of Stone fruit, Raisin grapes and Wine grapes. MBTOC acknowledges that according to the renoWalnut and Almonds and requests information why these rates are deemed not effective for Stone fruit, Raisin grapes and 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemennot done for this sector because most of the losses cannot be quantified. Factors that contribute to losses include delayetree loss, replant costs to replace tree losses, loss of trees replanted, yield loss of fruit or nuts, delayed achievement of fuwhole orchard. McKenry 1999, suggests that in some cases tree losses are likely to be greater than 20 % if replant disordOrnamentals 154.000 148.483 137.835 138.538 MBTOC comments: MBTOC is unable to assess this nomination at this time. The Party is requested to specify, to the be(e.g. cut flowers, cut foliage, bulbs, cuttings, etc) needing MB, the amounts needed and the circumstances making this nerequested is essential in order to fully assess the nomination. Also, the nomination needs to be disaggregated by protectepossible. MBTOC would also appreciate receiving an indication of the proportion of the crops already using MB and alteralternatives, particularly for those flower types where research has indicated that promising alternatives exist (e.g Elmore Greene, 2004; McSorley et al, 2006 a,b; Gerik et al, 2006; McSorley and Wang, 2004, and others). Reasons to justify why not being used (or only to a low proportion of the nominated area) are also sought. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statemenshow decreases in yield in California of 20% to 25% result in negative net revenues. In Florida net revenues decrease 65alternatives. In Michigan herbaceous perennials, yield losses of 25% lead to net revenue declines of 37%.
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Peppers (field) 1094.782 1243.542 1106.753 756.339 

United States 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 548.984 t for this use in SE, Georgia, Florida and Michigan in 2009 but does namount recommended includes 2.844 t for research. MBTOC has reduced the amounts in SE, Georgia, Florida by 25% fradoption of alternatives and further rate reduction by adoption of formulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjuncinformation, MBTOC has determined that the amounts for each region are 47.754 t for the SE, 84.072 t for Georgia, 404.1has stated that it based its nomination on MBTOCs standard maximum dosage rates of MB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha g/m2) for pathogens with adoption of LPBFand also made an adjustment for strip fumigation based on 0.58 of the area trerate for Michigan suitable for pathogens of 150 kg/ha (15 g/m2). MBTOC noted that the area of land using MB has increasCalifornia, methyl bromide is requested for the control of crown and root rots caused by Phytophthora capsici; Rhizoctonia(Meloidogyne spp). According to the Party, metam sodium is used on nearly as many acres as MB and has been consideaffected by township caps, however is possibly becoming less effective because of enhanced degradation, but this is not Party also did not provide evidence to support infeasibility of alternatives especially metham sodium and chloropicrin and effective alternative. The key pest of peppers in Michigan is Phytophthora capsici and in the Southeastern United States, capsici. In Michigan, P. capsici has been found in the irrigation water in Michigan and occurred after soil treatment with TMBTOC considers reinfestation can occur with any fumigants, including methyl bromide. 1,3-D/chloropicrin may be an effewill miss the optimal market window. According to the Party, this treatment cannot be applied in autumn because of climatopography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, which are considered the best alternatives for Florida and 8% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party in the past has stated that metam sodium or metam potassium is proprovided on their performance. MBTOC, however, considers that alternatives are available for both karst and non-karst ar2006; Rosskopf et al, 2005; Gilreath and Santos 2004a; Gilreath et al 2003a, 2005a; Gilreath 1999, Santos et al 2006; Chadopted on areas of moderate pest pressure at least, and has adjusted the nomination for these regions by 25%. The Parwas possible in these regions over a seven year period. MBTOC considered a 25% reduction possible in this year by furtMB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrier films, and adoption of alternatives. It has based this reduction oamount reflected a further 18% transition over the Parties suggested 7% transition for 2009). The Party showed referencecombination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are avilable (Ristaino and JohnJohnston et al (2002), Driver and Lows (2003). A combinaton of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Tmetalochlor) is considered as the best alternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination w(2004) and others have reported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper, including crop beans, onions, asparagus, soybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protecregistered fungicides (Mefonoxan, Dimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide + Mancozebe, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed Phytophthora during seed germination.. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests countries e.g Spain, Italy, Australia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005;Minuto et al, 2003). MBTamount are possible due to changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrikey alternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination for these regions by 25%. In 2007 thalternatives was possible in these regions over a seven year period. MBTOC considered a 25% reduction possible in this formulations of MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrier films, and adoption of alternatives. It has based 
112 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

MOP-18. (This amount reflected a further 18% transition over the Parties suggested 7% transition for 2009). The Party shalternatives in combination with LDPF (Culpepper, 2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are avilable (Ris(2002), Johnston et al (2002), Driver and Lows (2003). A combinaton of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbas the best alternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Haureported many efficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on pepper, including crop rotation with non suscesoybeans, alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds) anDimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide + Mancozebe, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metgermination.. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4 yeaAustralia. (Leoni and Leda, 2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005;Minuto et al, 2003). MBTOC considers that further formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier films. The Party states that registratiopending.MBTOC comments on economics: Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments. Economic states next best alternative in all regions is 1,3-D with chloropicrin with expected yield losses of 6 percent in Michigan and states 1,3-D with chloropicrin is considered technically feasible Michigan. In Michigan delayed planting and harvest with t(7.5%) received from missed market windows, and negative net revenue. In remaining regions yield losses significantly re
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Strawberry (field) 

2052.846 1730.778 1476.019 1349.575 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 70.088 tonnes for Eastern USA and 132.300 tonnes for Florida and 2.377 tonthe amount for California. MBTOC is awaiting clarification of feasible rates of adoption of alternatives and updated econoloss of 14% which is not explained in the CUN and appears to contradict the quantitative data presented in the CUN (whicprovide equal or higher yields compared to MB). For California the Party nominated 1,064,556 kg for 2009 (5452 ha at 19the grounds that township caps and county restrictions limit further adoption of 1,3-D and pic, hilly terrain prevents the use issues result from longer set-up or treatment times. In the case of township caps, alternatives that do not contain 1,3-D (sdazomet, often with LPBF) provide yields that are statistically comparable with MB (Ajwa et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; N2006ab). Pic EC provided an average 99% yield compared to MB, with low variance (studies cited in TEAP 2006). Alterncommercially adopted on about 5000 ha by 2004, and the annual adoption rate was 860ha/year in 2003-4. MBTOC consdrip systems or injection in some cases and alternatives can be adopted on areas that are not restricted by limits on 1,3-D regions that can and cannot use 1,3-D and pic to assist in determining whether the regulatory ceiling has been reached. M50:50 formulations (90% broadacre @ 193 kg/ha (19.3 g/m2 ; 10% strip @ 143 kg/ha (14.3 g/m2)). LPBF cannot be used wParty nominated 93,488 kg (534 ha @ 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2)). The nomination is based on moderate to severe pest pressPhytophthora cactorum, Cyperus escultentus, C. rotundus, Lolium spp.) affecting 33% of the crop area, and small farm buof 1,3-D formulations. MBTOC considers that alternatives are available for part of the CUN area (on both buffer and non bpic, metham with herbicides and/or (Ferguson et al. 2001; Sydorovych et al. 2004; Driver et al. 2005; López-Aranda et al. studies cited in TEAP 2006). MBTOC accordingly reduced the nomination by 23.372 tonnes (about 25%) to allow for tran150 kg/ha for the areas of low nutsedge pressure affected by buffer zones (allowing 175 kg/ha for the high pest pressure astates planned to implement MB/Pic mixtures with lower dosage rate formulations of MB/Pic in combination with LPBF in tFlorida the Party nominated 176,333 kg (1008 ha @ 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2)). The nomination is based on the grounds thacontrol moderate-severe nutsedge (33% of area), 1,3-D is restricted in karst/seepage areas (56%), and economic issues. available for part of the CUN area on both karst and non karst areas by use of combinations of 1,3-D, pic, metham with heevidence for yields that are statistically similar to MB (Gilreath et al. 2003bc; Norton et al. 2002; Ajwa et al. 2003, 2004, 202006). Accordingly the nomination was reduced by 44.083 tonnes to allow for transition to alternatives and dose adjustmepressure on karst (allowing 175 kg/ha (17.5 g/m2 ) for high pest pressure areas). 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prnext best alternatives for California, Florida, and Eastern United States. 1,3-D with chloropicrin is reported to reduce yield leads to large losses of net revenue. Planting and harvesting delays with alternatives are reported to lead to lower averagshown in the revenue analysis for California. 
114 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Strawberry runners 

54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a reduced amount of 7.944 tonnes for this use in 2009. This comprises 4.69 ttonnes for research. The key pests affecting strawberry runners are weeds (purple and yellow nutsedge), fungi (RhizoctonVerticillium), nematodes (root-knot, sting in CA). The CUN states that MB at a dosage of 26.3 g/m2 in CA and 35.0 g/m2 istandards for strawberry runners. The Party's request exceeds MBTOC's standard presumption of 200 kg/ha (20 g/m2) of of 'high health' strawberry runners using LPBF and other emission control technologies (TEAP October 2005); however, Cminimum amounts of MB that must be applied. Furthermore, California regulations prohibit the use of LPBF with MB. The presumptions. The Party indicates that key alternatives include 1,3-D + PIC followed by dazomet, PIC followed by dazomesufficiently tested on a commercial scale. Furthermore, MI is not currently registered. MBTOC encourages the Party to ealternatives as well as the registration of MI. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements prochloropicrin as the next best alternative with a 10-percent yield loss in California and the Southeastern States. Operating chigher in the Southeast and marginally lower in California. In both regions the alternative is predicted to result in a 46 percSweet potato slips 

None 80.830 0.000 18.144 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends a CUE of 18.144 MB for 2009 for this use.The key pests affecting production (Meloidogyne incognita), fungi (Streptomyces ipomea, Monilochaetes infuscans, Fusarium oxysporum, Ceratocystis fimbrand insects (Scarabid beetles, Limonius spp). The Party identifies that Telone effectively controls the key pests of sweet pbe used in Dec-Jan as township caps are exceeded by November which is the fumigation window for slips. The party requseed is produced. The rates stated in the CUN are consistent with MBTOC’s standard presumptions. However, MBTOC nare widely available elsewhere in the world and may be useful in managing nematode pests. The nomination does state thCalifornia from 2001 to 2003 but no results are provided. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: The nomination was not based on economic arguments. Economic statements palternatives given. Factors that contribute to losses include delayed planting due to use of alternatives; fallow; additional uand diseases resulting in smaller, less attractive produce (quality loss). 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18)

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBrecatio(adnew

Tomatoes (field) 

2876.046 2476.364 2065.246 1406.484 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 1004.589 t for this use in SE, Georgia, Florida and Michigan in 2009. The amresearch. A new nominated amount has been requested for Maryland a region which the Party has stated previously useSE, Georgia, Florida by 25% from the amount approved for 2008 to allow for adoption of alternatives and to account for fuof MB/Pic with lower ratios of MB in conjunction with barrier films. According to the available information, MBTOC has det231.085 t for the SE, 55.786 t for Georgia, 686.280 t for Florida, 24.915 t for Michigan and 1.022 t for Maryland. The Party MBTOCs standard maximum dosage rates of MB/Pic formulations of 175 kg/ha for nutsedge and 150 kg/ha for pathogens adjustment for strip fumigation based on 0.58 of the area treated. An adjustment was also made for dosage rate for Michigg/m2.) No information was provided on the key pests in Maryland and an assumption was made that pests were similar to assumed this region was not included in the “region SE and middle Atlantic, US”. If this assumption is not correct the partinformation. The key pest of tomatoes in the south eastern United States, including Florida and Georgia are nutsedge, nekarst topography limits the use of alternatives which include 1,3-dichloropropene, which are considered the best alternativacreage in Florida, 11% in Georgia and 6% of the acreage in Georgia. The Party in the past has stated that metham sodiualternatives but no further data has been provided on their performance. MBTOC, however, considers that alternatives are SE, Florida and Georgia (Noling et al. 2006; Santos et al. 2006; Noling and Gilreath 2004; Gilreath and Santos 2004bc; GRosskopf et al, 2005; Chellemi and Browne, 2006; McMillan and Bryan 1998, 1999, 2002; Rich and Olson 2003) which capressure at least. MBTOC has adjusted the nomination for these regions by 25%. The Party indicated that 42% transition over a seven year period. MBTOC considered a 25% reduction possible in this year by further rate reductions of MB usinin conjunction with barrier films, and adoption of alternatives. It has based this reduction on the amount approved at MOPtransition over the Parties suggested 7% transition for 2009). The Party showed references which supported use of altern2006). Other studies on possible effective alternatives are available (Ristaino and Johnson (1999), Babadost and Islam (2(2003). A combination of 1,3-D or metham sodium with chloropicrin + herbicides (Trifluralin, Devrinol, napropamide, halosalternative strategy in Florida. No future indication for the use of this combination was given by the Party. Husbeck and Laefficient management strategies to control Phytophthora on vegetables, including crop rotation with non susceptible hosts alfalfa , cultural control (water management, plant density, soil amendments, protective mulch, raised beds etc....) and usDimethomorph (Acrobat), Zoxamide + Mancozebe, Copper hydroxide+Acrobat). Seed treatment with Mephenoxan or metgermination. MBTOC notes that uptake of alternatives for this crop in regions with similar pests has occurred within 4 yeaAustralia. (Leoni and Ledda, 2004; Spotti, 2004; Tostovrsnik et al 2005;Minuto et al, 2003; Vos and Bridge 2006; EC 2006MB amount is possible changes to formulations of 50:50 MB/Pic or less (e.g. to 30:70) used in combination with barrier filmalternative (eg. methyl iodide) is pending. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics 2007: Part of the nomination for Michigan was based on economic arguments. Econreports yield losses for 1,3-D with chloropicrin as the next best alternative ranging from 1.75% to 6%. Net revenue declinecontrol costs are less than 4 percent of total variable costs so have little impact on economic measures. Missed market w
116 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

9.3.5 References 

Ajwa H.A., Fennimore, S., Kabin, Z., Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G., Trout, T., Kahn, A. and 

Daugovish, O. (2004). Strawberry yield with chloropicrin and inline in combination with 

metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6 November 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

Ajwa, H.A. S. Fennimore, Z. Kabir, F. Martin, J. Duniway, G. Browne, T. Trout, R. Goodhue, and L. 

Guerrero. (2003). Strawberry yield under reduced application rates of chloropicrin and InLine 

in combination with metam sodium and VIF. In: Annual International Research Conference 

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-6 November 2003, San Diego, 

California, USA. 

Ajwa, H.A. Trout, T., Fennimore, S., Winterbottom, C., Martin, F., Duniway, J., Browne, G., 

Westerdahl, B., Goodhue, R. and Guerrero L. (2002). Strawberry production with alternative 

fumigants applied through drip irrigation systems. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 6-8 November 2002, 

Orlando, Florida, USA. 

Ajwa, HA, Fennimore, S, Browne, G, Martin, F, Trout, T, Duniway, J, Shem-Tov, S and Daugovish, 

O. (2005). Strawberry yield with various rates of chloropicrin and Inline applied under VIF. 

Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions. 

Akkaya, F., Ozturk, A., Deviren, A., Ozcelik, A. and Ozkan, B. (2004). An economic analysis of 

alternatives to use of Methyl Bromide for greenhouse vegetables (Tomatoes, Cucumbers) and 

cut flowers (Carnation). Acta Horticulturae 638, 479-485. 

Allen, M. (2007). Personal communication, Victoria, Australia 

Ausher, R. (2004). Personal communication. Rehovot, Israel 

Babadost M and Islam S.Z., (2002). Bell peppers resistant to Phytophthora blight . Phytopathology, 

(Abstr), 92, 55 

Bartual, R., Cebolla, V., Bustos, J., Giner, A., Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2002). The Spanish project on 

alternatives to methyl bromide. (2): The case of strawberry in the area of Valencia. Acta Hort. 

567: 431-434. 

Batchelor, T.A. (2002). International and European Community controls on methyl bromide and the 

status of methyl bromide use and alternatives in the European Community. In: 

Proc.International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 5-8 March 2002, Sevilla. 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg. pp. 35-39. 

Batchelor, T.A. (ed.) (2000). Case Studies on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. Technologies with Low 

Environmental Impact. UNEP. Paris. 77pp. 

Bello A., (2007). Pers. comm., MBTOC member, Madrid, Spain 

Bello, A., Arias, M., Lopez-Perez, J., A., Garcia-Alvarez, A., Fresno, J., Escuer, M., Arcos, S. C., 

Lacasa, A., Sanz, R., Gomez, P., Diez-Rojo, M. A., Buena, A. P., Goitia, C., De la Horra, J. 

L.and Martinez, C. (2004). Biofumigation, fallow, and nematode management in vineyard 

replant. Nematropica, Puerto Rico, 2004, 34 (1) 53-64.

Budai, C. (2002) Case Study 1. Substrates for greenhouse tomatoes in peppers. In: Batchelor, T. (ed). 

Case Studies on alternatives to methyl bromide – Vol. 2. UNEP, Paris 

Cebolla, V., Bartual, R., Giner, A and. Bustos, J. (1999). Two years effect on some alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide on strawberry crops. In: Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1999. 1-4 November, 1999, San 

Diego, California, USA. 

CDPR. Pesticide Use Report (PUR Data). California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Summary of 

Pesticide Use Report Data (2005), Use by chemical; 2006. www.cdpr.ca.gov 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 117

Chellemi, DO. 2006. Effect of urban plant debris and soil management practices on plant parasitic 

nematodes, Phytophthora blight and Pythium root rot of bell pepper. Crop Protection 25, 

1109-1116. 

Chellemi, DO and Browne, GT. 2006. Area wide pest management project for methyl bromide 

alternatives. South Atlantic component. Proceedings of Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Powerpoint 

presentation. 

Chellemi, DO, Mirusso, J, and Nance, J. 2004. Evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives on 

commercial vegetable farms. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Chellemi, DO, Rosskopf, EN and Kokalis-Burelle, N. 2006. TeloneTM 

C-35 demonstration trial in 

eggplant. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Cram, M.M., Enebak, S.A., Fraedrich, S. W., Dwinell, L.W. and Zarnoch, S.J. (2007). Evaluation of 

Fumigants, EPTC Herbicide, and Paenibacillus macerans in the Production of Loblolly Pine 

Seedlings. Forest Science 53(1):73– 83. 

Culpepper, A.S., Grey, T.L., Webster, T.M. 2006. Purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) response to 

methyl bromide alternatives applied under four types of mulch [abstract]. In: Proceedings of 

the Southern Weed Science Society Annual Meeting, January 22-25, 2006. 

Culpepper S. And D. Langston (2004). Fumigant/ herbicide combinations. Unpublished study 

conducted by researchers at the University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Included in US CUE 

package 2004. 

De Cal, A., Martínez-Terceno, A., López-Aranda, J.M. and Melgarejo P. (2004). Alternatives to 

methyl bromide in Spanish strawberry nurseries. Plant Disease 88(2): 210-214. De Miguel, A. 

2004. Use of grafted cucurbits in the Mediterranean region as an alternative to Methyl 

Bromide. Fifth International Conference On Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 26-30 

September, 2004, Lisbon, Portugal Sept 2004. 

Driver J.G. and Lows , (2003). Management of Phytophthora crown and root rot in peppers (Abstr), 

Phytopathology, 93, S22 

Driver, JG, Brannen, P, Seitz, M, Schiemann, C, Welker, RM and Louws, FJ. (2005). On-farm 

fumigant trials for strawberries in the southeast. Proceedings of Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Duniway, J. M., Xiao, C. L. and Gubler, W. D. (1998) Response of strawberry to soil fumigation: 

Microbial mechanisms and some alternatives to Methyl Bromide. In: Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 

December, 1998, Orlando, Florida, USA pp. 6-1. 

EC, European Community, (2006). European Community Management Strategy for the phase-out of 

the critical uses of Methyl Bromide. May 2006. European Community, Brussels. 

Elmore, C., Roncoroni, J. and Tjosvold, S. (2003). Treatment combinations to improve efficacy in 

field- grown flowers. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. November 3 – 6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA. 

p. 112-1. 

Enebak, S., Starkey, T. and McCraw, D. (2006). Tree seedling quality and weed control with basamid, 

MBr and methyl iodide. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. November 3 – 6, 2006, Orlando, Florida, USA. 

Engindeniz, S. (2004). The economic analysis of growing greenhouse cucumber with soilless culture 

system: the case of Turkey. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23, 5-19. 

Fennimore, S, Kabir, Z, Ajwa, H, Daugovish, O, Roth, K and Valdez, J. (2003). Chloropicrin and 

Inline dose-response under VIF and HDPE film: weed control results. Proc. Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. pp.2/1-2/4 
118 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M., Louws, F.J., Poling, E.B., Sydorovych, O.B., Safley, 

C.D., Monks, D.W., Pesic-Van Esbroeck, Z., Sanders, D.C. and Smith, J.P. (2001). 

Alternative soil treatments for strawberry in the southeastern United States. In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. 

Fery, R.L. and Dukes, P. (1996). The inheritance of resistance to the southern root knot nematode in 

"Carolina Hot" cayenne pepper. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 

121, 1024-1027. 

Fraedrich S.W, L.D. Dwinell, and M.M. Cram, (2003). Broadcast Applications of Glyphosate Control 

Nutsedge at a South Georgia Forest Tree Nursery. Southern Journal of Applied Forestry 27(3): 

176-179 

Fraser, P, Coram, S., Dunse, B. Macfarling-Meure and Derek, N. (2006). Methyl bromide emissions 

through barrier films. CSIRO Report to Department of Primary Industries Victoria, August, 

2006 

Fritsch, J. (1998). Strawberries crops in France: different methods to apply methyl bromide and metam 

sodium in open fields. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reduction 1998. 7-9 December, 1998, Orlando, Florida 

Fritsch, J. (2002). The current status of alternatives to methyl bromide in vegetable crops in France. 

International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. March 5-8 2002. Seville, 193-

195. 

Fukuda, N. and Anami, Y. (2002) Substrate and nutrient level: effects on the growth and yield of 

melon `Cucumis melo' in soilless culture. Acta Horticulturae 588: 111-117 

Gerik, J.S. (2005a). Evaluation of soil fumigants applied by drip irrigation for Liatris production. Plant 

Disease 89: 883-887. 

Gerik, J.S. (2005b). Drip applied soil fumigants for floriculture production. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 31 Oct – 3 

Nov San Diego, California, 105-1 - 105-4 

Gerik, J.S. and I.D. Greene (2004). Drip applied soil fumigants for calla lily production Phytopathology

94(6): 

Gerik, J.S., Greene, I.D., Beckman, P. and Elmore, C.L. (2006). Preplant drip-applied fumigation for 

calla lily rhizome nursery. HorTechnology 16(2): 297 – 300 

Gilreath, J. 1999. Living without methyl bromide. Adapt now; thrive in 2005. Florida Farmer. 

September 1999. 

Gilreath J.P., BM.Santos, P.R.Gilreath, J.D. Busacca, J.E. Eger and J.M.Mirusso, (2006). Validation of 

a methyl Bromide alternative program for fresh market tomato, 2006, Journal of Agronomy,

5(2) 332-335 

Gilreath J.P., BM.Santos, P.R.Gilreath, J.P. Jones and J.W.Noling (2005). Efficacy of 1,3 D + 

Cloropicrin application methods in combination with pebulate and napromide in Tomato. 

Crop Protection 23:1187-1191 

Gilreath J.P., J.M. Mirusso, J.W.Noling, J.P.Jones and P.R.Gilreath, (2002a). Effectiveness of 

broadcast application of Telone C35 and Tilam+Devrinol in Tomato. Proceedings of the 

FloridaHorticultural Society., 115,276-280 

Gilreath, J.P., Mirusso, J.M., Jones, J.P., Rosskopf, E.N., Noling, J.W. and Gilreath, P.R. (2002b). 

Efficacy of broadcast Telone C-35 in tomato. Proceedings of Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis, T.N., Noling, J.W. and Mirusso, J.M. (2005a). Methyl bromide 

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop 

Protection. 24, 903-908. 

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T.N., Santos, B.M., Mirusso, J.M., Gilreath, P.R., Noling, J.W. and Jones, J.P. 

(2005b). Influence of supplementary in-bed chloropicrin application on soilborne pest control 

in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Crop Protection. 24, 779-784. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 119

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Siham, M. and Noling, J.W. 2005c. Effect of VIF on nutsedge control with 

metam, chloropicrin and 1,3-D, alone and in combination. Proceedings of Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. Powerpoint presentation.

Gilreath J.P.,and B.M. Santos (2005d). Efficacy of 1,3 D plus cloropicrin and herbicides on purple 

nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato. Weed Tecnol.,19-101-104’ 

Gilreath J.P.and B.M. Santos (2004a) Efficacy of 1,3 D plus chloropicrine in combination with 

hebicides on purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus) control in tomato. Weed Technol., 19, 137-

140. 

Gilreath, JP and Santos, BM. 2004b. Herbicide dose and incorporation depth in combination with 1,3-

dichloropropene plus chloropicrin for Cyperus rotundus control in tomato and pepper. Crop 

Protection. 23, 205-210. 

Gilreath, JP and Santos, BM. 2004c. Manejo de Cyperus rotundus (coquillo) con alternativas al 

bromuro de metilo, en tomate de mesa. Manejo Integrade de Plagas y Agroecología. 71, 54-

58. 

Gilreath, J.P., Motis, T. N., Santos, B. M. and Noling, J.W. (2003b). Retention of 1,3-dichloropropene 

and nutsedge control with Virtually Impermeable Film. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions Nov 3-6, 2003, San 

Diego, California USA. 

Gilreath, J.P., Santos, B.M., Motis, T.N., Noling, J.W., Mirusso, J.M. (2005b). Methyl bromide 

alternatives for nematode and Cyperus control in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Crop 

Protection 24: 903-908. 

Gilreath, JP, Noling, JW, Motis, TN, Rosskopf, E and Santos, BM. 2003a. Long term effect of 

fumigant and herbicide combinations in bell pepper (Capsicum annuum). Proceedings of 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions. 

Gilreath, JP, Motis, TN, Norton, J and Noling. JW. (2003b). Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl 

bromide alternatives program in Florida during 2002. Proceedings of Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Gilreath, JP, Motis, T, Noling, J and Mertly, J. 2003c. Results of the IR-4 strawberry methyl bromide 

alternatives program in Florida in 2002. Powerpoint presentation. University of Florida. 

Glireath, JP, Noling, JW, Jones, JP, Overman, AJ and Santos, BM. 2003d. Experiencias iniciales con 

alternativas al bromuro de metilo en tomate. Manejo Integrade de Plagas y Agroecología. 69, 

81-84. 

Haar, M., Fennimore, S. and Ajwa, H. (2001). Weed control efficacy of drip irrigation applied 

chloropicrin, metam sodium and 1,3-D. Proc. 2001 Annual International Research Conference 

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, San Diego, California. Paper 90. 

Hamill, J. E., Dickson, D. W., T-Ou, L., Allen, L. H., Burelle, N. K. and Mendes, M. L. (2004). 

Reduced rates of MBR and C35 under LDPE and VIF for control of soil pests and pathogens. 

In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions 31 October - 3 November, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 2-1. 

Hausbeck M.K and Lamour K.H., (2004). Phytophthora capsici on vegetable crops: Research progress 

and management. Plant Disease 88(12):1992-1303 

Horner, I.J. (1999). Alternative soil fumigant trials in New Zealand strawberry production. In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, 

San Diego, California, USA 

Johnston S.A., Kleinn W.L. ,Fogg M.L., and Zimmerman M.D, (2002). Varietal resistance evaluation 

for control of Phytophthora blight of pepper (Abstr). Phytopathology, 92, S40 

Kah, E.M. (2005).Effect of grafting on growth, performance and yield of aubergine (Solanum 

melongea L.) in the field and greenhouse. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment

3(3&4): 92-94 
120 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Lampinen, B., Browne, G., Schneider, S., Shrestha, A., Holtz, B. and Simon, L. (2006). Alternative 

pre-plant soil fumigation treatments for deciduous tree crops. Pp 39-1 – 39-5 In: Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, November 3-6 Orlando, Florida, USA paper 39 

Leoni, S and Ledda, L. (2004). Influenza delle limitazioni nell'uso del bromuro di metilo sull'ortcoltura 

in serra della Sardegna. Workshop Internazionale: La Produzione in Serra dopo l'era del 

Bromuro di Metile. April 1-3, 2004, Comiso, 253-263. 

Lieten, 2004. F. (2004). Substrates as an alternative to methyl bromide for strawberry fruit production 

in Northern Europe in both protected and field production. In: Proceedings of International 

Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004, Lisbon, Portugal. 

López-Aranda, J. M., Romero, F., Montes, F., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Vega, J. 

M., Paez, J. I., Dominguez, F., Lopez-Medina, J., and Flores, F. (2001a). Chemical and NonChemical Alternativesto MB Fumigation of Soil for Strawberry. 2000-2001 Results. In: 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 2001,San Diego, California, USA, pp. 40-1. 

López-Aranda, J. M., Medina, J. J., Miranda, L., De Los Santos, B., Dominguez, F., Sanchez-Vidal, M. 

D., Lopez-Medina, J., Flores, F. (2001b). Agronomic Behaviour of Strawberry Coming From 

Different Types of Soil Fumigation in Nurseries. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2001. 5-9 November, 

2001, San Diego, California, USA, pp. 38-1. 

López-Aranda, J. M., Miranda, L., Romero, F., De Los Santos, B., Montes, F., Vega, J. M., Paez, J. I., 

Bascon, J., Medina, J. J. (2003). Alternatives to MB for Strawberry Production in Huelva 

(Spain). 2003 Results. Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 2003. November, 2003, San Diego, California, pp. 

33-1. 

López-Aranda, JM, Santos, BM, Gilreath, JP, Miranda, L, Soria, C and Medina J.J. (2005). Evaluation 

of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry in Florida and Spain. Proceedings of Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, San Diego, California, USA. 

López-Medina, J., Peralbo, A. and Flores, F. (2004). Closed soil-less growing system: A sustainable 

solution for strawberry crop in Huelva, (Spain). Acta Horticulturae. 649:213-216 

Loumakis, N. (2004). Protected vegetable production in Mediterranean regions without the use of 

Methyl Bromide. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 

27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. 

Mann, R.C., S.W. Mattner, R.K. Gounder, R.W. Brett and I.J. Porter (2005). Evaluating novel soil 

fumigants for Australian horticulture. Pp 34-1 – 34-4 In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reductions, Oct 31 -Nov. 3, San 

Diego, California. 

Martyn, R.D. (2002). Monosporascus root rot and vine decline of melons. Plant Disease Lessons. The 

Plant Health Instructor. DOI: 10.1094/PHI-I-2002 0612-01. American Phytopathological 

Society. 

 Matsuo K. and Suga Y. (1993) Control effect of soil disinfectant and crop rotation on necrotic spot 

disease of melon. Proceedings of the Association of Plant Protection Kyushu 39:43-47 

MBTOC (1998). 1998 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 

UNEP, Nairobi. 

MBTOC, (2007). 2006 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 

UNEP, Nairobi 482 pp. 

MBTOC. (2002). 2002 Assessment Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee. 

UNEP, Nairobi. 468pp. 

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. (1998). Vapam as an alternative to methyl bromide for south Florida 

tomato growers. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 121

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. (1999). Effect of metam sodium and methyl bromide on root-knot, 

weeds and yield in Florida tomato. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference 

on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

McMillan, R.T. and Bryan, H.H. (2002). Efficacy of Vapam and Kpam fumigation for Florida 

tomatoes. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

McSorley, R., K.H. Wang and N. Kokallis-Burelle. (2006a). Solarization as an alternative to Methyl 

Bromide in Florida floriculture. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl 

Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, November 6-9, 2006 Orlando, Florida, USA 

McSorley, R; Wang, K-H (2004). Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide for managing nematodes 

and weeds in snapdragon. Proeedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 117:334-337. 

2004. 

McSorley, R., Wang, K-H., and Saha, S.K. (2006b). Can solarization match methyl bromide 

fumigation in sites colonized by fungi? Phytopathology 96(6), suppl., p. S187 

Melgarejo, P., De Cal, A., Salto, T., Martinez-Beringola, M. L., Martinez-Treceno, A., Bardon, E., 

Palacios, J., Becerril, M., Medina, J. J., Galvez, J., Lopez-Aranda, J. M. (2001). Three Years 

of Results on Chemical Alternatives To Methyl Bromide For Strawberry Nurseries in Spain. 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reduction 2001. 5-9 November, 2001, San Diego, California, pp. 93-1. 

Minuto, A., Garibaldi, A. and Gullino, M.L. (2003). Chemical alternatives to Methyl Bromide in Italy: 

an update. Pp. 22-1 – 22-4 In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emission Reductions, November 3-6, 2003, San Diego, California, USA. 

Mutitu, E, Waswa, R, Musembi, N, Chepsoi, J, Mutero, J and Barel, M. (2006). Use of methyl bromide 

alternatives in small scale vegetable sector in Kenya. Methyl Bromide Alternatives Project – 

Kenya. GOK-GTZ-UNDP project. Nairobi. 

Nelson M. et al. (2001a). Marketable berry yield cv. Camarosa – Oxnard trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries. 

Nelson M. et al. (2001b). Marketable berry yield cv. Diamante – Salinas trial, CA. 2000-01 USDA IR4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program in Strawberries. 

Nelson, M., Rodriguez, L., Vander Mey, B., Lepez, G. and Norton, J. (2002). Results from the 2001-02 

USDA IR-4 MBA Field Trials in California Strawberries. Proc. Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reduction. pp.16/1-

16/4. 

Noling, J. W. and Gilreath, J. P. (2004a). Use of virtually impermeable plastic mulches (VIF) in Florida 

strawberry. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives 

and Emissions Reductions, November 3-6, 2004, Orlando, Florida, USA. pp. 1-1. 

Noling, JW and Gilreath, JP. (2004b). Evaluations of chemical alternatives to methyl bromide for 

nematode control and tomato yield in field microplots. Proceedings of Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Noling, J.W., Gilreath, J.P. and Botts, D.A.(2006). Chapter 23. Alternatives to methyl bromide soil 

fumigation for Florida vegetable production. In: Olson, SM. et al. 2006. Vegetable Production 

Handbook for Florida. University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences 

(IFAS) Extension. 

Noling, J. W., Gilreath, J. P. and Rosskopf, E. R. (2001). Alternatives to Methyl Bromide Field 

Research Efforts For Nematode Control in Florida. In: Annual International Research 

Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions , 5-9 November, 

2001, San Diego, California, USA. pp. 14-1. 

Norton, J, Gilreath, J, Nelson, M. (2002). 2000-2001 IR-4 MBA strawberry trial. Chancey Farm, Dover 

/ Plant City, FL. USDA IR-4 Methyl Bromide Alternatives Program for Minor Crops. 

Ou, L.T., Thomas, J.E., Allen, L.J., Vu, J.C. and Dickson, D.W. (2007). Emissions and distribution of 

methyl bromide in field beds applied at two rates and covered with two types of plastic 

mulches. Environmental Science 42(1): 15 – 20. 
122 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Pietr, S.J., Slusarski, C. and Lewicka, T. (2002). Methyl bromide alternatives evaluated in strawberry 

production in UNEP’s regional demonstration project in central and eastern Europe. In: 

Proceedings of th International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, March 5-8, 

2002, Seville, Spain. 

Pivonia, S., Cohen, R., Kigel, J. and Katan, J. (2002). Effect of soil temperature on disease 

development in melon plants infected by Monosporascus cannonballus. Plant Pathology 51 

(4), 472–479. 

Pivonia, S., Cohen, S. Cohen, S., Kigel, J., Levita, R and Katan, J. (2004). Effect of irrigation regimes 

on disease expression in melon plants infected with Monosporascus cannonballus. European 

Journal of Plant Pathology 110(2): 

Porter I.J, Mattner, S., Gounder, R., Mann, R., Banks, J. and Fraser, P. (2004). Strawberry fruit 

production: summaries of alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation and trials in different 

geographic regions. Proceedings of International Conference on Alternatives to Methyl 

Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. 

Porter, I., Brett, R., Wiseman, B., and Rae, J. (1997). Methyl bromide for preplant soil disinfestation in 

temperate horticultural crops in Australia in perspective. Annual International Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 3-5 November, San Diego, 

California USA. 

Porter, I.J., L. Trinder and D. Partington. (2006). Special Report Validating the Yield Performance of 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Preplant fumigation. TEAP/MBTOC Special Report, 

UNEP Nairobi, May 2006 97pp. 

Rich, J.R. and Olson, S.M. (2003). Fumigant alternatives to methyl bromide in North Florida U.S.A 

tomato production. Nematropica. 33, 157-163. 

Rosskopf, E.N., Chellemi, D.O., Kokalis-Burelle, N. and Church, G.T. (2005). Alternatives to methyl 

bromide: A Florida perspective. APSnet Feature, June 2005. 

Ristaino J.B. and Johnston S.A . (1999). Ecologically based approaches to management of 

Phytophthora blight on bell pepper. Plant Disease, 83, 1080-1089 

Runia, W.T. and Molendijk, L.P.G. (2006). Improved efficacy of metam sodium by rotary spading 

injection. Wageningen University and Research Center, Lelystad. 16pp. 

Runia, W.T., Molendijk, L.P.G. and Evenhuis, B. (2007). Desk study on efficacy of alternatives to 

methyl bromide against soliborne fungi and plant parasitic nematodes in strawberry runners. 

Applied Plant Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 47 pp. 

Sakuma, H. and Suzuki, K. (1995) Development of energy-saving hydroponics systems without 

requiring electricity. JIRCAS J. 4: 73-77.Gerik, J.S. (2005c). Drip-applied soil fumigation for 

freesia production. HortTechnology, 15 (4): 820-824 

Santos, B.M., J.P. Gilreath and T.N. Motis (2005). Managing nutsedge and stunt nematode in pepper 

with reduced methyl bromide plus chloropicrin rates under virtually impermeable films. 

HortTechnology 15(3): 596-599. 

Santos, BM, Gilreath, JP, Motis, TN, Noling, JW, Jones, JP and Norton, JA. (2006). Comparing methyl 

bromide alternatives for soilborne disease, nematode and weed management in fresh market 

tomato. Crop Protection. 25, 690-695. 

Savvas D and Passam H (eds) (2002). Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals. Embryo 

Publications, Athens. 

Schneider, S., Trout, T., Browne, G. and Ajwa, H. (2004). Vineyard replant - performance of methyl 

bromide alternatives over time. Pp 8-1 - 8-5 In: Annual International Research Conference on 

Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions 3-6 November 2004, Orlando, 

Florida, USA. 

 Shem-Tov, S, Ajwa, HA and Fennimore, S. (2006a). Strawberry yield and weed control with 

alternative fumigants applied in combination with metam under various tarps. Proceedings of 

Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions.
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 123

Shem-Tov, S, Ajwa, HA and Fennimore, SA. (2005). Effect of alternative tarp and fumigants 

combinations with metam sodium on strawberry yield. In: Proceedings of Annual 

International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions 

Reductions, San Diego, Califonia, United States. 

Shem-Tov, S, Ajwa, HA, Fennimore, SA and Hunzie, J. (2006b). Strawberry production and weed 

control in soils treated with basamid and chloropicrin. Proceedings of Annual International 

Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

Simonne, EH, Stall, WM, Pernezny, KL, Webb, SE, Taylor, TG. and Smith, SA. 2006. Chapter 28. 

Eggplant Production in Florida. In: Olsen et al. Handbook of Vegetable Production in Florida. 

IFAS Extension, University of Florida. 

Smith, I.W., J. Dunez, R.A. Lelliot, D.H. Phillips and S.A. Archer (1988). Pp 200 – 202 In: European 

Handbook of Plant Diseases. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, UK.South, D.B. 2007. 

Chloropicrin as a Soil Fumigation Treatment in Southern Pine Nurseries. Southern Journal of 

Applied Forestry 31(1): 47 - 51 

Sonneveld, (2002). Composition of nutritional solution. In: Savvas D and Passam H (eds) (2002). 

Hydroponic Production of Vegetables and Ornamentals. Embryo Publications, Athens pp 179 

- 210. 

South, D. (2007). Chloropicrin as a Soil Fumigation Treatment in Southern Pine Nurseries. Southern 

Journal of Applied Forestry 31(1): 47 - 51 

Spotti, C. (2004). The use of fumigants and grafted plants as alternatives to Methyl Bromide for the 

production of tomatoes and vegetables in Italy. Proceedings of International Conference on 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide. 27-30 September 2004. Lisbon. 

Stanghellini, M.E., D. M. Ferrin, D. H. Kim, M. M. Waugh, K. C. Radewald, J. J. Sims, and H. D. Ohr 

(2003). Application of preplant fumigants via drip irrigation systems for the management of 

root rot of melons caused by Monosporascus cannonballus Plant Disease 87(10): 1176 - 1178 

Sydorovych, O., Safley, C.D., Poling, E.B., Ferguson, L.M., Fernandez, G.E., Brannen, P.M. and 

Louws, F.J. (2004). Economic evaluation of methyl bromide alternatives for strawberry 

production. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. 

TEAP (2004). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2004. Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment 

Programme, Nairobi. 

TEAP (2005). Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2005. Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment 

Programme, Nairobi. 

TEAP (2006) Report of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, October 2005. Montreal 

Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, United Nations Environment 

Programme, Nairobi. 

Thanassoulopoulos, C.C., Bletsos, F.A., Moustafa, A.M. (2006) Development of an empirical model to 

predict losses in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) production caused by Verticillium wilt. 

Crop Protection 

Tognoni F., Incorcci L., and.Pardossi, A. (2004). Use of substrates for intensive production of 

vegetables in Europe and Mediterranean regions. Proceedings of fifth International conference 

on Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, Lisbon, 27-30 September, 2004, 177-181. 

Tostovrsnik, N.S., A.L. Shanks, I.J. Porter, S.W, Mattner and R.W. Brett (2005). Facilitating the 

adoption of alternatives to methyl bromide in Australian horticulture. Pp 13-1 – 13/4 In: 

Trout, T. and Damodaran, N. (2004). Adoption of methyl bromide alternatives by California strawberry 

growers. Proceedings of Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide 

Alternatives and Emissions Reductions.

Vos, J and Bridge, J. (ed.) 2006. Cases of methyl bromide alternatives used in commercial practice. 

CAB International. 
124 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Wang D., Yates S.R., Ernst F.F., Gan J. and Jury W.A. (1997). Reducing methyl bromide emission 

with a high barrier plastic film and reduced dosage. Environmental Science and Technology

31, 3686-3691. 

Wang, D. (2005). Emission and soil distribution of fumigants in forest tree nurseries. Pp 42-1 – 42-4 

In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission 

Reductions, Oct 31 - Nov. 3, San Diego, California 

Wang, D., S. W. Fraedrich, J. Juzwik, K. Spokas, Y. Zhang, W.C. Koskinen, (2006). Fumigant 

distribution in forest nursery soils under water seal and plastic film after application of 

dazomet, metam-sodium and chloropicrin. Crop Science. 

Yates, S.R. (2005). Reducing bystander exposure by emission reduction. Annual International Research 

Conference on MB Alternatives and Emissions Reductions. Oct 31 - Nov 3, 2005. San Diego, 

California, USA 

Yücel, I.H., Elekçioğlu, A. and Uludağ, A. (2002). Solarization and its combinations: the first year 

results of ademonstration project. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on 

Alternatives to Methyl Bromide, 5 – 8 March, 2002, Seville, Spain. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 125

9.4 Evaluation of 2007 Critical Use Nominations for Methyl Bromide and 

Related Matters; MBTOC Quarantine, Structures and Commodities 

Interim Report – March 2007 (MBTOC-QSC) 

9.4.1 Standard presumptions used in assessment of nominated quantities 

Table 9.10 below states the standard presumptions applied by MBTOC QSC in assessing this 

round of CUNs where continued methyl bromide use is sought. These have not changed since 

presentation to the Parties at MOP-17. 

 Table 9.10 Standard presumptions used in assessment of CUNs – Structures and 

Commodities 

 Comment CUN Adjustment Exception 

Dosage rate - 

structural 

20 gm-3 Nominations using higher 

dosage rates were reduced 

proportionally 

Where approved label 

rates require higher 

dosage rate or where 

substantiated by the Party 

Dosage rate –

commodities 

EPPO standard for bulk 

commodities as given in 

MBTOC (1994, 1998) 

Nominations using higher 

dosage rates were reduced 

proportionally 

Where approved label 

rates require higher 

dosage rates or where 

substantiated by the Party 

MBTOC recognises that the actual rate appropriate for a specific use may vary with local 

circumstances, soil conditions and the target pest situation. Some nominations were based on 

rates lower than these indicative rates. 

9.4.1.1 Adjustments for standard dosage rates 

MBTOC assessed CUNs for appropriate MB dosage rates and deployment of MB 

emission/use reduction technologies, such as appropriate sealing techniques. 

Decision IX/6 requires that critical uses should be permitted only if ‘all technically and 

economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated 

emission of methyl bromide’. Decision Ex.II/1 also mentions emission minimisation 

techniques, requesting Parties “...to ensure, wherever methyl bromide is authorised for 

critical-use exemptions, the use of emission minimisation techniques that improve 

gastightness or the use equipment that captures, destroys and/or reuses the methyl bromide 

and other techniques that promote environmental protection, whenever technically and 

economically feasible.” 

In structures, it is feasible to reduce MB use and emissions by the use of improved sealing 

techniques, with monitoring to ensure only the minimum effective dosage is used. The 

average dosage rates now quoted in the CUNs, typically around 20 g m-3 for mills and similar 

structures, are reasonable. 

In commodities, methyl bromide dosage rates vary with commodity temperature and by 

commodity sorption rates. Accordingly, MBTOC uses the dosage rates published by the 

European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and found in annexes to the MBTOC 2006 

Assessment Report (MBTOC, 2007) Parties are encouraged to use the lowest possible dosage 

rate appropriate for the circumstances and as allowed by the label. Where possible, the use of 
126 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

lower dosages, combined with longer exposure periods, can reduce MB use while maintaining 

efficacy. (MBTOC. 2007. 2006 Report of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee; 2006 Assessment Report.) 

9.4.1.2 Details of evaluations 

Parties have submitted 16 CUNs for the use of MB in structures and commodities in 2007. 

Of the 2007 nominations, 7 were for 2008 for a total of 11.535 tonnes. Of nominations for 

2008, MBTOC QSC recommended 5, with 2 recommended at less than the full amount 

nominated, for a total of 3.952 tonnes. MBTOC was unable to assess one nomination for 2008 

and did not recommend one CUN. 

Of the 2007 nominations 9 were for 2009 for a total of 529.721 tonnes. Of the nominations 

for 2009, MBTOC QSC recommended 8, with 4 recommended at less than the full amount 

nominated , for a total of 476.017 tonnes. MBTOC QSC was unable to assess one nomination. 

Table 9.11 provides the MBTOC QSC interim recommendations for the CUNs submitted in 

2007. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Table 9.11 MBTOC QSC Interim Recommendations for the CUNs Submitted in 2007 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommation fo(additionew) 

Rice 6.150 6.150 9.205 7.400 1.800 0.840 MBTOC comments: On 2008 CUN: MBTOC recommends an additional 0.84 tonnes to the 7.4 tonnes of MB already granted by the Partiesubmitted a supplemental nomination of 1.8 tonnes for 2008. MBTOC's recommendation for this reduced amount was 

harvest of 261.300 tonnes, milled to 209,000 tonnes and fumigated at 20g/m3 giving a total MB usage of 8.24 tonnes. 

On 2009 CUN: MBTOC is unable to assess the nomination of 9.2 tonnes for 2009. MBTOC recommends that this nomprovides further information on costs of moving at least some production to alternatives by 2009. Technically effective 

use in most rice producing countries, but they have not been adopted in Australia. The Party indicates that the applica

because for several years, drought, caused by global warming, has severely decreased rice harvests. Government of A

use of MB until at least three years of non-drought conditions enable sufficient investment. Should there be an easing 

crop sizes, Government of Australia has indicated phase out could begin in 2009 with the resulting complete phase ou

in recapture equipment on its largest treatment site with quoted savings of about 45% of MB emissions. Pest control tr

avoid the need for pest control in milled rice are available and in use world wide. For example, reasonably-costed cont

available on a lease basis (per tonne of commodity) and in use in other countries. This method would avoid investmen

and would be effective to treat rice either before or after processing. The applicant has suggested that it can not adopt 

investment of A$40 million to build 100 silos and that phosphine would cost 58 times the cost of methyl bromide. The Prequires further clarification. Rice is stored as paddy without fumigation, and then milled in an orderly fashion as neede

of treatment facilities for non-QPS rice would be considerably fewer given that the applicant would only require sufficie

phosphine and not the 28 days suggested by the applicant. A 7-day treatment time is acceptable for milled rice with ph

treatment time would allow for fumigation to occur immediately after production and keep pace with milling with fewer a

can not afford to change its packaging method. Improved packaging would prevent re-infestation and would be an effe

prevent new infestation are in use in numerous rice producing countries. In 2006, Parties granted 10.3 tonnes of methy

used in 2006 on rice, according to the accounting framework of the Government of Australia 

Australia 

MBTOC comments on economics: The CUN states: drought has made it impossible to undertake investment in pho

silos would be Aus $40 million. CUN states it would involve three years of transition, potentially complete in 2012. How

this capital expenditure. Even if borrowing or raising external capital is not feasible, the calculations of the annual cost 

over the economic life of the investment. CUN Tables 3, 4, and 5 compare costs of phosphine and MB treatment on an 

phosphine would costs $19.02 per ton for each of the first 10 years. For a 1-kilo retail package this amounts to $0.19, demand and with any branding value, some of this could be is passed on to consumers. Further, per capita domestic 

beer, pet food, seed and residual) is about 9 kg per person. This suggests an annual cost to consumers if higher fumi

cents per year per person. Some distributional issues remain as certain ethnic groups have much higher than average 
128 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommation fo(additionew) 

Mills 47 (included 

mills and pasta) 

34.774 30.167 

(included mills only) 

28.650 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 26.913 tonnes for flour mill fumigation in 2009 with the understanding that 

research program and complete reports in 2007. Industry-government commercial scale trials of heat treatment, sulfur

dioxide combination, are ongoing. Sulfuryl fluoride is only allowed under conditional registration and can only be used 

levels for fluoride resulting from SF fumigations have been established in Canada. Furthermore, it is unknown if any us

fluoride by Provincial governments. The nomination for 2009 represents a decrease of about 5% relative to 2008 levelsdecrease in any further nomination if the trials currently being conducted show economic feasibility and technical effica

notes that a growing body of research and practical experience indicates that best results in SF fumigations are obtain30 ̊C are achieved. MBTOC awaits the results of Canadian testing to determine if this result is also observed in Canad

Canada 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: It appears that heat remains very costly and has not provided comp

of alternatives unlikely. Technical feasibility issues and lack of registration still exist. This nomination does not rely on 

Pasta (see Canada 

mills) 

10.457 6.757 6.067 U 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC is unable to assess the nomination for use in pasta manufacturing facilities in 2008. MBT

when the Party supplies reports detailing the results of trials, concrete plans for trials (such as contracts), or explains w

time frame. The applicant indicates that trials to test and adopt heat and sulfuryl fluoride will be made in 2007. Previou

have not yet been reported. In Oct 2006 in response to this CUN MBTOC wrote, ‘For any future CUN, MBTOC hopes tcommercial trial data evaluating the technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of alternatives used in other count

applicable in the circumstances of Canada. Specifically, (1) effectiveness of improvements in IPM, including a pest audand inspection, (2) facility heat treatments, and (3) sulfuryl fluoride when applicable.” MBTOC acknowledges that sulfu

conditionally registered in Canada and there are no maximum residue levels for fluorine in foods in Canada. Pasta maimprovements in IPM that seem needed. The 2008 nominated amount is 10.2% less than the 2007 CUE granted by th

available for pest control use in pasta mills that are used in other countries. Successful heat treatment in a North Ame

Subramanyam (2006). Pasta facilities consist of two areas (production and warehousing) with potentially different ave

seems likely that the production facility should be able to adopt heat treatments, given that the operation of production 

the processing facility. Increasing the mill temperature to the lethal point of 55 ̊C would be effective and seems achieva

used on finished product, rigorous modern IPM including contact pesticide applications may succeed. If Canada’s intennecessary in the short term, for warehousing, it should be possible to considerably reduce MB nominations by treating 

(Subramanyam., B., Kashyap S.., Ruby, C., and X. Hou. 2006. Summary of a heat treatment conducted at New World 

Alternatives Organization annual conference. Orlando Nov 2006. Full report presented to New World Pasta Oct 2006, 

Canada.). 

Canada 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: that heat treatment remains a very costly alternative. In general, th

cost to carry out the heat treatment at twice the cost of doing a methyl bromide treatment. The cost of a heat treatmen

methyl bromide when the cost of monitoring to ensure comparable results to a methyl bromide fumigation are included
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommation fo(additionew) 

Commodities 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 NR MBTOC comments: MBTOC does not recommend the use of methyl bromide for rodenticides and molluscicides in 2

not been demonstrated. Data has not been submitted substantiating that mould would develop in bait for rodents or moimproved and standard good manufacturing practices were used. The applicant indicates that product may become su

open at room temperatures, awaiting final processing and packaging without any effort made to cool or aerate the prod

to less than 75% equilibrium relative humidity the Aspergillus spp, said to be of concern, should not proliferate. Similar

grain handling techniques of air circulation, aeration, and/or air conditioning in the storage room, mould would also not 

product was subjected to a long mid-process storage time, mould growth would not occur. The applicant has not estab

worldwide for the production of sterile lab animal feed would not be acceptable and available in this circumstance. The circumstances of this nomination are different than those of bait-food producers in other countries who do not use MB 

Canada 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN based on technical reasons. No economic data provided for al

Dates 3.444 2.755 2.200 1.800 1.8 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 1.8 tonnes for dates in 2008. Israel’s research programme combined with 

has allowed the successful adoption of heat treatment by packers of Medjool dates, the main variety. The Party has co

However, heat treatment has not been successful, thus far, for other date varieties. Work continues on this prospective 

may provide a technically effective alternative. A heat and carbon dioxide combination treatment has been found to be 

‘cocoon’ method of vacuum in flexible container has worked for some varieties but requires packing houses to invest aleast one date variety is harmed by this method, but the applicant is encouraged to make the investments and shift in t

technically feasible and where product quality is not harmed. Phosphine is not feasible from the viewpoint of product q

although they have proven successful in the treatment of other dried fruit, are not registered. 

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: Alternative 3 (Cold) is not technically suitable, alternative 1 (Heat ) 

while alternative 2 (CO2), 4 (vacuum) and 5 ( Heat + CO2) require further studies to reveal whether they are economic

no economic data. 

Flour mills 2.140 1.490 1.040 0.800 0.312 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 0.312 tonnes for Israel flour mills in 2008, a 61% reduction in the nominatrigorous IPM program combined with heat treatment seems a likely avenue for success in the circumstances of this no

applicant to complete transition to alternatives. The applicant indicates spot treatment with MB is used in the case of in

treatment by heat seems quite possible, especially given the generally high ambient temperature. Although the applica

sulfuryl fluoride, it seems unlikely to resolve their infestation problems in the short or middle term since there has not esubmitted yet. The applicant indicates it uses 35 g m-3 of MB based on the poor penetration of MB through flour residu

before fumigation as a standard sanitation practice and a normal part of IPM. The MBTOC standard dosage rate is 20g 

treatments and would be more than sufficient for spot treatment. The amount of MB recommended was based on the f

reported to need to fumigate mills and equipment totalling 15,600m3. When MBTOC standard dosage rate of 20g m-3 

needed.

Israel 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: that heat treatment is not economically feasible. Suitable equipmen

CUN provides no economic analysis.
130 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommation fo(additionew) 

Chestnuts 7.100 6.800 6.500 6.300 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 5.8 tonnes for Japan chestnuts in 2009. The Party has decreased the req

requiring growers and packing houses to amalgamate fumigation loads. The Party is encouraged to continue these imincreasing fumigation time. The Party has a rigorous research program that, in preliminary results, has identified some 

the alternatives tested are either ineffective disinfestants or harms this fresh product. More encouraging research resu

not yet registered in Japan. 

Japan 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN provides no economic analysisCoffee & Cocoa Beans 

See Medicinal Herbs 

2.160 1.420 0.500 0.500 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 0.5 tonnes for this use in 2008, a reduction of 64.3% for this sector over la

has significantly reduced its requirement for MB by the reuse of recaptured MB. Additionally, the Party is adopting pho

generated forms of phosphine is anticipated this year and will increase the rate of transition. If there are delays or ineff

treatment, another avenue is the use of heat and low oxygen as a combination controlled atmosphere treatment. This 

would control the mite infestation in an approximate treatment time of 5 days. 

Poland 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: that phosphine (which is not registered, inter alia because of the ex

largely as a result of additional costs associated with fumigation time of 12 days; high cost of speed boxes and phosph

the fumigation treatments with phosphine more expensive by 50 Euro per tonne. CUN states that irradiation is expensi

the facility. 

medicinal herbs and mushrooms 

4.100 3.560 1.800 0.500 0.500 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 0.5 tonnes for this use in 2008, a reduction of 81.5% for this sector over la

significantly reduced MB use in this sector by moving commodities to alternatives as technologies and treatments beca

the last remaining uses which are moving to use of carbon dioxide/high pressure. 

Poland 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: that phosphine (which is not registered, inter alia because of the ex

largely as a result of additional costs associated with fumigation time of 12 days; high cost of speed boxes and phosph

the fumigation treatments with phosphine more expensive. CUN states that irradiation is expensive because of the hig
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommation fo(additionew) 

Commodities 89.166 87.719 78.983 58.921 inc. 

0.021 for research

 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 45.623 tonnes for US commodities in 2009. This amount includes 20 kilog

58.921 tonnes for 2009, which included 21 kilograms for research purposes, but which included no transition to alterna

for 2008. MBTOC’s recommendation represents a 20% decrease in the nomination for walnuts, dried fruit and dates to 

of dried beans, we did not recommend a 20% reduction this year but reduced the dosage rate from 44g m-3 to 20g m-3

recommended are: walnuts (28.088); dried fruit (13.928); beans (1.980); dates (1.607). There are several alternatives a

widespread use, but its slower action sometimes makes it logistically impractical for meeting holiday market windows. 

in California, but is not registered if the beans are stated to be infested with cowpea weevils. Trials using phosphine an

dates. Sulfuryl fluoride is technically effective and available; MRLs have recently been established in Germany, one of 

importing countries, however, have not yet established MRLs for fluoride residues, which limits its use in some cases. 

effective and the technology is available on a lease basis. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN provides economic data on alternatives for walnuts and dried fruit other tha

costs are higher because it takes longer to accomplish so sellers don’t reach December holiday export market window

it corrodes equipment. CUN states walnuts and dried fruit all experience substantial additional downtime and subsequ

revenues for alternatives are negative. CUN states that profit margin decreases from 13.3% to –7.5% for Walnuts and 

economic analysis was not done for dates and dried beans. 

Cocoa beans -NPMA subset 

61.519 55.367 64.082 53.188 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 32.659 tonnes of methyl bromide for cocoa beans in 2009. Cocoa beans 

MBTOC disaggregates it. Although the Party had indicated they could achieve a 4.2% reduction in MB use over 2008

adoption in this sector for some of the commodity. Bookout (2006) reported a successful commercial trial with sulfuryl f

the summer months. The amount of MB recommended was based on the following considerations. Sulfuryl fluoride is 

permitted residue limits make it available for only one fumigation. Concerns about possible egg survival in the instance 

cold bean temperature means that sulfuryl fluoride is more suitable for the second fumigation just before shipment to c

should have its highest effectiveness in the warmer parts of the year. Since cocoa bean imports vary annually, MBTOC use of MB for cocoa beans, then reduced it by 25% to allow for adoption of sulfuryl fluoride during the warm half of the 

before shipment to chocolate manufacturers. (A five-year average of historical MB use is 43.545 tonnes, minus 25% = during the coldest months, not all cocoa is given the second fumigation, according to fumigator reports, making this red

future years, there are opportunities to replace chemical treatments with controlled atmosphere treatments or storage. ProFume on stored cocoa beans. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and E

Orlando, Florida, USA, Paper 105).

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: that for commodities listed in the NPMA CUN, an economic analysi

not have an alternative registered. The comment about alternative registration is incorrect. For food-processing facilitifeasibility of such alternatives was not assessed due to the lack of revenue information, which is necessary to quantify 

facilities. 
132 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommation fo(additionew) 

NPMA food processing structures (cocoa beans removed) 

83.344 69.118 82.771 69.208 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 54.606 tonnes for processed food facilities in 2009. Cocoa beans has bee

elsewhere. The Party has requested 66.777 tonnes for these sectors, cocoa removed. The Party indicates it can achie

84% of its facilities in this sector. The constant reduction in absolute tonnes annually of 84% of the total of this CUN is 

included). 2009 will be the second year of this transition plan. MBTOC has not included a reduction for cheese stores b

but the Party has reduced its MB nomination in this sector through various improvements. The total tonnage recomme

amounts: processed foods (49.103); herbs and spice facilities (3.238); cheese (2.265). The Party is requested to ensu

facilities is used only for the facilities and not the commodity, especially not if intended for QPS. There are alternatives 

commercial use in the US, and QPS uses cannot be included in critical uses. 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: CUN states: For commodities listed in the NPMA CUN, an economic analysis wahave an alternative registered. The comment about alternative registration is incorrect.. For food-processing facilities l

such alternatives was not assessed due to the lack of revenue information which is necessary to quantify the economi

Mills and processors 

483.000 461.758 401.889 348.237 

MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 291.418 tonnes for US mills and structures in 2009. Overall this is a 16.3% 

is distributed over each sector as follows: rice mills 26.7%, bakeries 41.8%, pet food 17.7% and flour millers 11.9%. Th

this use in 2008. The overall decrease in MB use is also similar to transition estimates by suppliers of alternative produ

MB recommended can be broken down into sectors as follows: rice mills (48.804); bakeries (8.308); pet food (21.955); making the fastest transition to alternatives and seem to have resolved earlier facility design problems that resulted in 

should continue to be improved and numerous techniques are available to do so. MB should not be used in facilities th

situations are especially prevalent in rice and flour mills. Transition to adoption of heat treatments should be encourage

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: The CUN states: that heat will cost 1.5 times and sulfuryl fluoride costs 1.3 time

reported to result in lost operating days and thus lower throughput and gross revenues. Where sulfuryl fluoride is techn

of 57% (rice millers), but only 4% (bakeries) and 2% (pet food manufacturers and North American Millers Association)

assessment. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Country Industry Quantity 

approved for 2005 (ExMOP1 and MOP16) 

Quantity approved for 2006 (MOP16+ ExMOP2+ MOP17) 

Quantity approved for 2007 (MOP17+ MOP18) 

Quantity approved for 2008 (MOP18) 

Quantity nominated for 2008 (additional or new) 

MBTOC recommation fo(additionew) 

Cured pork 67.907 40.854 18.998 19.669 MBTOC comments: MBTOC recommends 18.998 tonnes for 2009. This amount was also granted by the Parties for from the amount granted by the Parties in 2008 of 19.669 tonnes and renominated for 2009. There are no registered a

mites on pork hanging in curing houses. Reliable historical use volumes for the largest group of producers in this secto

of small units. Therefore there is no justification for increase in use in this sector. A multi-state research project has be

research will identify potential for improvements in IPM, facility gastightness, processing methods and efficacy of alternand eventual transition to alternatives. The Party is encouraged to investigate efficacy of non-chemical alternatives for 

faster transition away from MB in this sector. Controlled atmosphere at increased temperature may be effective. An ad

in hot oil as is done in European countries for similar pork products. (Schillings W. 2006. Methyl Bromide use to comb

production. In: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emissions Reductions, 

United States 

MBTOC comments on economics: No economic data given. This is a minor use and there is little economic incentiv

SUMMARY 

 Total post harvest CUN amounts Total recommended amounts 

2008 11.535 3.952 2009 529.721 476.017 
134 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

APPENDIX I to Chapter 9 

Common Acronyms 

1,3-D 1,3-dichloropropene 

A5 Article 5 Party 

CUE Critical Use Exemption 

CUN Critical Use Nomination 

DOI Disclosure of Interest 

EC European Commission 

EMOP Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPPO European Plant Protection Organisation 

IPM Integrated Pest Management 

ISPM International Standard Phytosanitary Measure 

LPBF Low Permeability Barrier Film (including VIF films) 

MB Methyl bromide 

MBTOC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

MBTOC QSC Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

Quarantine, Structures and Commodities Subcommittee 

MBTOC S Methyl Bromide Technical Options Soils Subcommittee 

MITC Methyl isothiocyanate 

MOP Meeting of the Parties 

MS Metham sodium 

Pic Chloropicrin 

QPS Quarantine and Pre-shipment 

SF Sulfuryl fluoride 

TEAP Technology and Economics Assessment Panel 

US United States of America 

VIF Virtually Impermeable Film 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 135

APPENDIX II to Chapter 9 

Decision IX/6 

1. To apply the following criteria and procedure in assessing a critical methyl bromide 

use for the purposes of control measures in Article 2 of the Protocol: 

(a) That a use of methyl bromide should qualify as “critical” only if the nominating 

Party determines that: 

(i) The specific use is critical because the lack of availability of methyl bromide 

for that use would result in a significant market disruption; and 

(ii) There are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes 

available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment 

and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the 

nomination; 

(b) That production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should 

be permitted only if: 

(i) All technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise 

the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide; 

(ii) Methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from 

existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide, also bearing in mind 

the developing countries’ need for methyl bromide; 

(iii) It is demonstrated that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, 

commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and 

substitutes, taking into consideration the circumstances of the particular 

nomination and the special needs of Article 5 Parties, including lack of 

financial and expert resources, institutional capacity, and information. NonArticle 5 Parties must demonstrate that research programmes are in place to 

develop and deploy alternatives and substitutes. Article 5 Parties must 

demonstrate that feasible alternatives shall be adopted as soon as they are 

confirmed as suitable to the Party’s specific conditions and/or that they have 

applied to the Multilateral Fund or other sources for assistance in 

identifying, evaluating, adapting and demonstrating such options; 

2. To request the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel to review nominations 

and make recommendations based on the criteria established in paragraphs 1 (a) (ii) and 1 

(b) of the present decision; 

3. That the present decision will apply to Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties 

not so operating only after the phase-out date applicable to those Parties. 

Para. 2 of Decision IX/6 does not assign TEAP the responsibility for determining the 

existence of “significant market disruption” specified in paragraph 1(a)(i). 

TEAP assigned its Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) to 

determine whether there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or 

substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment 

and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination, and to 

address the criteria listed in Decision IX/6 1(b). 
136 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

APPENDIX III to Chapter 9 

Report of the Sixteenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (Annex I), 

Prague, 22–26 November 2004), paragraph 15. 

(Decision XVI/4. Review of the working procedures and terms of reference of the Methyl 

Bromide Technical Options Committee) 

“15. An annual work plan will enhance the transparency of, and insight in, the operations of 

MBTOC. Such a plan should indicate, among other things: 

(a) Key events for a given year; 

(b) Envisaged meeting dates of MBTOC, including the stage in the nomination and 

evaluation process to which the respective meetings relate; 

(c) Tasks to be accomplished at each meeting, including appropriate delegation of such 

tasks; 

(d) Timing of interim and final reports; 

(e) Clear references to the timelines relating to nominations; 

(f) Information related to financial needs, while noting that financial considerations 

would still be reviewed solely in the context of the review of the Secretariat’s budget; 

(g) Changes in the composition of MBTOC, pursuant to the criteria for selection; 

(h) Summary report of MBTOC activities over the previous year, including matters that 

MBTOC did not manage to complete, the reasons for this and plans to address these 

unfinished matters; 

(i) Matrix with existing and needed skills and expertise; and 

(j) Any new or revised standards or presumptions that MBTOC seeks to apply in its 

future assessment of critical-use nominations, for approval by the Meeting of the 

Parties. ” 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

APPENDIX IV to Chapter 9 – Part A: Preplant Soil Applications List of nominated (2005 – 2009 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2008 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by P

each crop or commodity. 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quan

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 

Australia Cut Flowers – field 40.000 22.350 18.375 22.35Australia Cut flowers – protected 20.000 10.425 Australia Cut flowers, bulbs – protected Vic 7.000 7.000 6.170 6.150 7.000 7.000 Australia Strawberry Fruit 90.000 67.000 Australia Strawberry runners 35.750 37.500 35.750 35.750 29.790 35.750 37.50Belgium Asparagus 0.630 0.225 0.630 0.225 Belgium Chicory 0.600 0.180 0.180 0.180 Belgium Chrysanthemums 1.800 0.720 1.120 Belgium Cucumber 0.610 0.545 0.610 0.545 Belgium Cut flowers – other 6.110 1.956 4.000 1.956 Belgium Cut flowers – roses 1.640 Belgium Endive (sep from lettuce) 1.650 1.650 Belgium Leek & onion seeds 1.220 0.155 0.660 Belgium Lettuce(& endive) 42.250 22.425 25.190 Belgium Nursery Not Predictable 0.384 0.900 0.384 Belgium Orchard pome & berry 1.350 0.621 1.350 0.621 Belgium Ornamental plants 5.660 0.000 Belgium Pepper & egg plant 5.270 1.350 3.000 1.350 Belgium Strawberry runners 3.400 0.900 3.400 0.900 Belgium Tomato (protected) 17.170 4.500 5.700 4.500 Belgium Tree nursery 0.230 0.155 0.230 0.155 Canada Strawberry runners (PEI) 14.792 6.840 7.995 7.462 7.462 (a)14.792 6.840 Canada Strawberry runners (Quebec) 1.826 1.826 (a) 1.826 Canada Strawberry runners (Ontario) 6.129 France Carrots 10.000 8.000 5.000 8.000 8.000 France Cucumber 85 revised to 60 60.000 15.000 60.000 60.00France Cut-flowers 75.000 60.250 12.000 60.000 52.00France Forest tree nursery 10.000 10.000 1.500 10.000 10.00France Melon 10.000 10.000 7.500 6.000 France Nursery: orchard, raspberry 5.000 5.000 2.000 5.000 5.000 
138 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quan

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 

France Orchard replant 25.000 25.000 7.500 25.000 25.00France Pepper Incl in.tomato cun 27.500 6.000 27.50France Strawberry fruit 90.000 86.000 34.000 90.000 86.00France Strawberry runners 40.000 4.000 35.000 40.000 40.00France Tomato (and eggplant for 2005 only) 150(all 

solanaceous) 

60.500 33.250 125.000 48.40

France Eggplant 27.500 33.250 48.40Greece Cucurbits 30.000 19.200 30.000 19.20Greece Cut flowers 14.000 6.000 14.000 6.000 Greece Tomatoes 180.000 73.600 156.000 73.60Israel Broomrape 250.000 250.000 250.000 Israel Cucumber - protected new 2007 25.000 18.750 6.250 Israel Cut flowers – open field 77.000 67.000 80.755 53.345 53.345 77.000 67.00Israel Cut flowers – protected 303.000 303.000 321.330 163.400 155.200 303.000 240.0Israel Fruit tree nurseries 50.000 45.000 10.000 50.000 45.00Israel Melon – protected & field 148.000 142.000 140.000 87.500 87.500 125.650 99.40Israel Potato 239.000 231.000 137.500 93.750 93.750 239.000 165.0Israel Seed production 56.000 50.000 56.000 28.00Israel Strawberries – fruit 196.000 196.000 176.200 64.125 57.000 196.000 196.0Israel Strawberry runners 35.000 35.000 20 20 35.000 35.00Israel Strawberry runners and fruit Ghaza 87.875 83.250 Israel Tomatoes 90.000 Israel Sweet potato 111.500 61.250 Italy Cut flowers (protected) 250.000 250.000 30.000 250.000 187.0Italy Eggplant (protected) 280.000 200.000 15.000 194.000 156.0Italy Melon (protected) 180.000 135.000 10.000 131.000 131.0Italy Pepper (protected) 220.000 160.000 67.000 160.000 130.0Italy Strawberry Fruit (Protected) 510.000 400.000 35.000 407.000 320.0Italy Strawberry Runners 100.000 120.000 35.000 120.000 120.0Italy Tomato (protected) 1300.000 1030.000 418.000 871.000 697.0Japan Cucumber 88.300 88.800 72.400 68.600 61.400 88.300 88.80Japan Ginger – field 119.400 119.400 112.200 112.100 102.200 119.400 119.4Japan Ginger – protected 22.900 22.900 14.800 14.800 12.900 22.900 22.90Japan Melon 194.100 203.900 182.200 182.200 168.000 194.100 203.9Japan Peppers (green and hot) 189.900 200.700 169.400 162.300 134.400 187.200 200.7Japan Watermelon 126.300 96.200 94.200 43.300 23.700 129.000 98.90Malta Cucumber 0.096 0.127 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quan

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 

Malta Eggplant 0.128 0.170 Malta Strawberry 0.160 0.212 Malta Tomatoes 0.475 0.594 New Zealand Nursery material 1.085 1.085 0.000 New Zealand Strawberry fruit 42.000 42.000 24.780 42.000 34.00New Zealand Strawberry runners 10.000 10.000 5.720 8.000 8.000 Poland Strawberry Runners 40.000 40.000 25.000 12.000 40.000 40.00Portugal Cut flowers 130.000 8.750 50.000 8.750 Spain Cut Flowers – Cadiz 53.000 53.000 35.000 53.000 42.00Spain Cut Flowers – Catalonia 20.000 18.600 12.840 17.000 

(+Andalucia) 

 20.000 15.00

Spain Pepper 200.000 155.000 45.000 200.000 155.0Spain Strawberry Fruit 556.000 499.290 80.000 556.000 499.2Spain Strawberry Runners 230.000 230.000 230.000 215.000 230.000 230.0Spain Peppers and Strawberries 0.151 UK Cut flowers 7.560 6.050 UK Ornamental tree nursery 12.000 6.000 6.000 6.000 UK Strawberry (& raspberry in 2005) 80.000 63.600 68.000 54.50UK Raspberry nursery 4.400 4.400 USA Chrys. Cuttings/roses 29.412 29.412 0.000 USA Cucurbits – field 1187.800 747.839 598.927 588.949 411.765 1187.800 747.8USA Eggplant – field 76.761 101.245 96.480 79.546 62.789 76.721 82.16USA Forest nursery seedlings 192.515 157.694 152.629 133.140 125.758 192.515 157.6USA Ginger 9.200 9.200 0.000 USA Orchard replant 706.176 827.994 405.415 405.666 314.007 706.176 527.6USA Ornamentals 210.949 162.817 149.965 138.538 137.776 154.000 148.4USA Nursery stock - fruit trees, 

raspberries, roses 

45.789 64.528 12.684 51.102 27.663 45.800 64.52

USA Peppers – field 1094.782 1498.530 1151.751 919.006 783.821 1094.782 1243.USA Strawberry fruit – field 2468.873 1918.400 1733.901 1604.669 1336.754 2052.846 1730.USA Strawberry runners 54.988 56.291 4.483 8.838 8.837 54.988 56.29USA Tomato – field 2876.046 2844.985 2334.047 1840.100 1245.249 2876.046 2476.USA Turfgrass 352.194 131.600 78.040 52.189 0 206.827 131.6USA Sweet potato 224.528 18.144 18.144 
140 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

APPENDIX IV to Chapter 9 – Part B: Post-harvest Structural and Commodity Applicat

List of nominated (2005 – 2008 in part) and exempted (2005 – 2008 in part) amounts of methyl bromide granted by P

each crop or commodity. 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quan

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 

Australia Almonds 1.900 2.100 1.900 2.100 Australia Rice consumer packs 12.300 12.300 10.225 9.200 

+1.8 

9.200 6.150 6.150 

Belgium Artefacts and structures 0.600 0.307 0.590 0.307 Belgium Antique structure & furniture 0.750 0.199 0.319 0.199 Belgium Churches, monuments and ships' 

quarters 

0.150 0.059 0.150 0.059 

Belgium Electronic equipment 0.100 0.035 0.100 0.035 Belgium Empty silo 0.050 0.043 0.050 0.043 Belgium Flour mill see mills below 0.125 0.072 See mills 

below 

0.072 

Belgium Flour mills 10.000 4.170 9.515 4.170 Belgium Mills 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 Belgium Food processing facilities 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 Belgium Food Processing premises 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 Belgium Food storage (dry) structure 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.000 Belgium Old buildings 7.000 0 .306 1.150 0.306 Belgium Old buildings and objects 0.450 0.282 0.000 0.282 Belgium Woodworking premises 0.300 0.101 0.300 0.101 Canada Flour mills 47.200 34.774 30.167 28.650 26.913 (a)47 34.77Canada Pasta manufacturing facilities (a) 10.457 6.757 6.067 (a) 10.45Canada Commodities 0.068 France Seeds sold by PLAN-SPG company 0.135 0.135 0.100 0.135 0.135 France Mills 55.000 40.000 8.000 40.000 35.00France Rice consumer packs 2.000 2.000 2.000 2.000 France Chestnuts 2.000 2.000 1.800 2.000 2.000 Germany Artefacts 0.250 0.100 0.250 0.100 Germany Mills and Processors 45.000 19.350 45.000 19.35Greece Dried fruit 4.280 3.081 0.900 4.280 3.081 Greece Mills and Processors 23.000 16.000 1.340 23.000 15.44
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quan

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 

Greece Rice and legumes 2.355 2.355 Ireland Mills 0.888 0.611 0.888 Israel Artefacts 0.650 0.650 0.600 0.650 0.650 Israel Dates (post harvest) 3.444 3.444 2.200 1.800 3.444 2.755 Israel Flour mills (machinery & storage) 2.140 1.490 1.490 0.800 2.140 1.490 Israel Furniture– imported 1.422 1.422 2.042 1.422 0.000 Italy Artefacts 5.500 5.500 5.000 5.225 0.000 Italy Mills and Processors 160.000 130.000 25.000 160.000 65.00Japan Chestnuts 7.100 6.500 6.500 6.300 5.800 7.100 6.800 Latvia Grains 2.502 2.502 Netherlands Strawberry runners post harvest 0.120 0.120 0 Poland Medicinal herbs & dried mushrooms 

as dry commodities 

4.000 3.560 1.800 0.500 4.100 3.560 

Poland Coffee, cocoa beans (a) 2.160 2.000 0.500 2.160 Spain Rice 50.000 42.06Switzerland Mills & Processors 8.700 7.000 8.700 7.000 UK Aircraft 0.165 UK Mills and Processors 47.130 10.195 4.509 47.130 10.19UK Cereal processing plants 8.131 3.480 (a) 8.131 UK Cheese stores 1.640 1.248 1.248 1.640 1.248 UK Dried commodities (rice, fruits and 

nuts) Whitworths 

2.400 1.256 2.400 1.256 

UK Herbs and spices 0.035 0.037 0.030 0.035 0.037 UK Mills and Processors (biscuits) 2.525 1.787 0.479 2.525 1.787 UK Spices structural equip. 1.728 1.728 0.000 UK Spices stored 0.030 0.030 0.000 UK Structures buildings (herbs and 

spices) 

3.000 1.872 0.908 3.000 1.872 

UK Structures, processors and storage 

(Whitworths) 

1.100 0.880 0.257 1.100 0.880 

UK Tobacco equipment 0.523 0.050 UK Woven baskets 0.770 0.770 USA Dried fruit and nuts (walnuts, 

pistachios, dried fruit and dates and dried beans) 

89.166 87.719 91.299 67.699 58.912 89.166 87.71

USA Dry commodities/ structures (cocoa 

beans) 

61.519 61.519 64.028 52.256 51.002 61.519 55.36
142 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Party Industry Total CUN MB Quantities Total CUE MB Quan

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2005 2006 

USA Dry commodities/ structures 

(processed foods, herbs and spices, dried milk and cheese processing facilities) NPMA 

83.344 83.344 85.801 72.693 66.777 83.344 69.11

USA Smokehouse hams (Dry cure pork 

products) (building and product) 

136.304 135.742 40.854 19.669 19.699 67.907 81.70

USA Mills and Processors 536.328 505.982 401.889 362.952 291.418 483.000 461.7
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

APPENDIX V to Chapter 9 Summary of CUE trends and information provided in National Management Strategies for phase-out of critical-us

Party CUE industry 

2007/2008) 

CUEs approved by MOP (tonnes) 

CUNs (tonnes) 

Expected or planned schedule for MB phase-out for Critical Uses 

Constraints t

 2005 2006 2007 2007 

(new) 

2008 

Australia Rice, strawberry, 

protected flowers 

146.6 75.1 40.88 10.25 51.1 Reduce the imports of methyl 

bromide to zero by 2010 or earlier. CUE holders to identify and transition to alternatives before 2010. Turf growers and flour mills have been using stocks from before 2005 and have not requested CUEs so far. 

Demonstrating films will requcurrently prevA national profumigant treathave also been considered to further trials aTelone C 35 (

identified and strawberry run

Canada Mills, strawberry 

runners 

61.79 53.90 39.99 12.87 36.11 As fast as possible following 

transition strategy principles to phaseout. No figures provided. 

Potential alter

The governmetechnology/suas alternatives The Canadian collaborative pand is currentl

assist companalternatives. R

first quarter of 
144 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Party CUE industry 

2007/2008) 

CUEs approved by MOP (tonnes) 

CUNs (tonnes) 

Expected or planned schedule for MB phase-out for Critical Uses 

Constraints t

 2005 2006 2007 2007 

(new) 

2008 

Japan Chestnuts, cucumber, 

ginger, pepper, melons, watermelons 

748 741.4 636.172 0 589.6 Will ensure the reduction of 

critical uses nomination successively. No figures provided NMS to promote the phase-out of uses of methyl bromide as soon as technically and economically feasible. Difficult to suggest standard reduction level in general. 

Experimental diseases and vtechnologies o

• methyl io

humidity 

• control o

stock - de

• green pep

tobamov

New Zealand 

Strawberry fruit, strawberry runners 

50 42 0 30.50 - Government has determined that 

2007 will be the last nominations that will be supported for the critical use of methyl bromide by the strawberry industry. 

The most likel

ongoing difficsub-optimal w

be completed 

USA Dried commodities, 

mills and processors, ham, cucurbits, eggplant, forest seedlings, nurseries, orchard replant, ornamentals, peppers, strawberry fruit, strawberry nurseries, tomatoes, turfgrass, sweet potato 

9552.879 8081.753 6749.060 0 15105.78 Manage CUEs in accordance with 

the policies, procedures and regulations that are in place to address the elements in Ex.I/4(3) (i.e. avoid increases except under unforeseen circumstances; encourage use of alternatives; provide information on the potential market penetration of alternatives; promote emissions reductions measures; provide a description of phase-in of feasible alternatives) 

Sector-by-sect
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 145

10 Development of the Response to Decision XVIII/12 

Since 1998, TEAP has progressively published its own special reports on the interrelationship 

of the technologies to protect stratospheric ozone and the technologies to protect climate. 

Early in 2005, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) published the Special Report “Safeguarding the 

Ozone Layer and Global Climate System” (SROC). That report provided information 

relevant to decision-making in regard to the fact that some alternatives and substitutes to 

ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) are themselves potent greenhouse gases, included in the 

basket of chemicals controlled by the Kyoto Protocol. It also highlighted the significance of 

banked ODSs in respect of their future climate impacts. In November 2005, TEAP responded 

to an additional request from Parties and published “The Supplement to the IPCC/TEAP 

Report” to further elaborate the ozone depletion implications of the issues raised in the 

IPCC/TEAP Special Report and in particular to translate the “Mitigation” and “Business as 

Usual” scenarios contained within the SROC into ozone-specific units in order to highlight 

the potential benefits to the ozone layer. In accordance with decision XVII/19, the Ozone 

Secretariat convened an experts’ workshop on 7 July 2006 to identify practical measures for 

reducing emissions of ODSs; it subsequently published a report of that workshop. 

At MOP-18 in New Delhi, Parties took another decision asking TEAP to further assess 

measures deemed as practical in the report of the 7 July 2006 workshop, with a particular 

focus on the timing, feasibility and environmental benefits of HCFC control schedules for 

Article 5 Parties. 

Decision XVIII/12 requests TEAP to address the following: 

... to further assess the measures listed in the report of Ozone Secretariat workshop on 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel special report, in the light of current and expected trends of ozone-depleting 

substance production and consumption and with a focus on hydrochlorofluorocarbons, 

taking into account timing, feasibility and environmental benefits in Parties operating 

under Article 5 and Parties not operating under Article 5 of the Protocol; 

... to provide information on current and future demand for, and supply of, 

hydrochlorofluoro-carbons, giving full consideration to the influence of the Clean 

Development Mechanism on hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22 production, as well as on the 

availability of alternatives to hydrochlorofluorocarbons; 

while requesting the Ozone Secretariat 

...to facilitate consultations, as appropriate, by the Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel with relevant organizations, namely, the United Nations Framework Convention on 

Climate Change Secretariat, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the 

Executive Board of Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, and the 

secretariat of the Multilateral Fund, to enable the Technology and Economic Assessment 

Panel to draw on the work already carried out under these organizations, including any 

work relating to hydrochlorofluorocarbon-22, and consider, in cooperation with the 

Scientific Assessment Panel, the implications of these findings for the recovery of the 

ozone layer; 

In preparing its response to this Decision at its Rome meeting, TEAP has nominated the 

following TEAP members and invited other experts to form a Task Force. TEAP may need to 

supplement the Task Force membership if the nominated and invited experts are unable to 

serve or if the work of the Task Force ultimately requires additional expertise. 

 
146 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Radhey Agarwal (India) - Co-chair 

 Paul Ashford (UK) - Co-chair 

 Lambert Kuijpers (Netherlands) - Co-ordinator 

 

TEAP Other Invited Experts (not yet confirmed) 

 Stephen O. Andersen (United States) Denis Clodic (France) 

 Biao Jiang (China) Sukumar Devotta (India) 

 Jose Pons (Venezuela) Jean Lupinacci (United States) 

 Miguel Quintero (Colombia) Roberto Peixoto (Brazil) 

 Helen Tope (Australia) Guus Velders (Netherlands) 

 Dan Verdonik (United States) 

 Masaaki Yamabe (Japan) 

 Shiqiu Zhang (China) 

TEAP’s evaluations in response to this Decision will be based on a series of scenarios which 

will assess the impacts in both magnitude and timing of various external factors on supply, 

demand and emissions of ODSs and their alternatives. TEAP is likely to use the same basecase scenario for future HCFC emissions as presented by the Scientific Assessment Panel 

(SAP) in the 2006 Assessment Report, which assumes full compliance with existing control 

measures, business-as-usual growth rates prior to the freeze in production and consumption 

by Article 5 Parties, and then production and consumption at the allowable limits into the 

future until scheduled phaseout in 2040. 

In responding to paragraph 1 of the Decision, the Task Force is intending to group by ‘type of 

measure’ the 31 measures that were identified as practical at the Montreal Workshop in July 

2006. These groupings will then form the basis of the Task Force’s analysis which will cover 

impacts on both stratospheric ozone and climate, taking into account timing, feasibility and 

environmental benefits to Parties operating under Article 5 and Parties not operating under 

Article 5 of the Protocol for each of the measures considered. Particular emphasis will be 

placed on issues affecting HCFCs. The following matrix illustrates the intended approach: 

Grouping by ‘Type of Measure’

Dom 

Refrig

Emission reduction in use phase 

Earlier transition from ODS 

Design issues & material selection 

End-of-life Management 

Com 

Refrig

Trans 

Refrig

Stat 

A/C

Mob 

A/C

Foam Halon

4

1

3,5 6

10

8

9

11

12

13

14

15

17

18,19,20

18

19

21

22,27

23,24

25

26

28

29,30

31

Early retirement of equipment 2 7 16

The interaction of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as it relates to HFC-23 projects 

with supply/demand for HCFC-22 will be the focus of TEAP’s response to the subject matter 

of the second operative paragraph of the Decision. Work has already begun in assessing the 

scenarios currently under consideration by the Executive Board of the CDM. In these new 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 147

scenarios, TEAP will assess the sensitivity of HCFC production, consumption, and emissions 

estimates, prior to the cap for Article 5 Parties to the price of HCFC-22, where the latter may 

vary as a consequence of the incentives to capture profits from HFC-23 emissions mitigation 

under the CDM and other public and private greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes. 

An interim Task Force Report covering both operative paragraphs will be presented at 

OEWG-27 and will take the form of a PowerPoint presentation, giving preliminary results of 

the above analyses and suggesting other findings that can be developed by TEAP prior to 

MOP-19. This interim report will be followed by a final written report, which will be 

circulated ahead of MOP-19 and will take full consideration of any comments received during 

discussions at OEWG-27 in Nairobi. 

To support the response to Decision XVIII/12, the Ozone Secretariat has already been in 

contact with the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism and the Secretariat 

of the Multilateral Fund. The Chief Officer of the Secretariat also attended the TEAP meeting 

in Rome as an observer in order to present the findings of the recently completed HCFC 

Surveys and to assist the TEAP in its deliberations. Informal discussions continue between 

the TEAP and the UNFCCC secretariat as well as with members of the Science Assessment 

Panel. 

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 149

11 TEAP/TOC Organisation Issues 

11.1 Budget 

TEAP is grateful for the continuing support of those national governments, the European 

Commission, associations and companies that finance the time and expenses of the 

participation of experts in the TEAP, TOCs and Task Forces. However, TEAP and its TOCs 

are facing the continued loss of some of their most experienced members, who are critical to 

the quality, objectivity, and timeliness of TEAP findings. While it is often the case that some 

experts committed to the Montreal Protocol may work without payment for their working 

time, it is much less feasible to work without reimbursement of actual costs relating to travel 

and subsistence. In 2006, some TEAP members were forced to pay thousands of dollars in 

travel out of pocket, and to take unpaid leaves-of-absence for participating in TEAP and TOC 

meetings, while others had to cash in frequent-flyer miles for travel to TEAP meetings. These 

extraordinary actions and sacrifices are unsustainable. 

It is fortunate that the costs relating to travel are paid by the Ozone Secretariat for Article 5 

participants, but it is unfortunate and unfair that some self-employed developing country 

experts working as consultants have been unable to find funding to compensate the 

considerable time spent working for TEAP and the TOCs. 

Therefore, TEAP renews its request for emergency funding of up to 26 travels per year for 

2007 and 2008 to cover travel for non-Article 5 members of TEAP and TOCs. If direct 

funding out of the Ozone Trust Fund through the Secretariat is not possible, TEAP 

respectfully requests that assignments to TEAP be paid on time and a cost basis from the 

Ozone Secretariat, the Multilateral Fund or other appropriate sources. 

Mindful that Parties have repeatedly rejected requests for financing, individual TEAP and 

related TOC members will continue to seek adequate funding from governments, 

associations, and companies, while TEAP itself will investigate funding from foundations. 

Parties may also wish to consider other options such as fees per application for essential and 

critical uses. Another option Parties could consider is financing from the Multilateral Fund 

for studies such as the Multilateral Fund Replenishment Assessment on topics such as process 

agents where a MOP commissions a study from the TEAP and the MLF Executive 

Committee commissions it from the MLF Secretariat, which is a duplication of effort. TEAP 

notes that if a lack of travel funds for MBTOC members results in resignations, and if these 

resignations all come from only one or two regions, MBTOC’s ability to ensure that CUNs 

are reviewed by experts not in conflict of interest will be jeopardised. The MBTOC QSC 

subcommittee currently has several members from the EU with no funding; resignations of 

these experts would jeopardise the management method used to ensure CUNs are reviewed by 

experts without any conflict of interest. 

11.2 Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Adjustments 

At MOP-18 in New Delhi, Parties decided not to finance extraordinary travel of TEAP and 

TOC members and not to finance the budget put forward in the MBTOC Workplan. Parties 

also decided to hold MOP-19 during the week of 17-21 September 2007, which is earlier than 

usual. The accelerated schedule for consideration of methyl bromide Critical Use 

Nominations (CUNs) made it necessary for the MBTOC to meet 19-23 March 2007, just days 

before the TEAP meeting, which took place 26-30 March 2007 in Rome. 
150 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

After consultation among all TEAP members including MBTOC Co-Chairs, TEAP adjusted 

the MBTOC operations to accommodate the challenges of inadequate funding and the early 

date in September 2007 when the 19th Meeting of the Parties will be held. 

TEAP is pleased to report that MBTOC Co-Chairs agree that the recent subcommittee 

strengthening has improved the links between topics and experts; populated each 

subcommittee with the best experts; improved the efficiency of meetings, which may reduce 

the length of future meetings; and simplified the process of coming to consensus. TEAP 

anticipates that the new structure will be even more successful in 2008 with the experience 

gained. The strengthening and revitalizing process has not yet finished and will continue in 

the coming months. 

MBTOC has always been divided into two subcommittees, which are now designated as the 

Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Soils Sub-Committee (MBTOC-S) and the 

Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee Quarantine, Structures and Commodities SubCommittee (MBTOC-QSC). Mindful of the increasing importance of QPS uses of methyl 

bromide and in order to economise costs of operations, TEAP’s Quarantine and Preshipment 

Task Force (QPS Task Force) members have been integrated into the MBTOC QSC 

subcommittee for 2007. Each subcommittee has specific expertise necessary for the 

competent assessment of relevant CUNs. The operation is consistent with the old format and 

ensures that members who form consensus on the CUNs are present at all the discussions 

during the meetings. 

TEAP has instructed MBTOC and all TOCs that, when consensus cannot be reached, experts 

not in agreement with the technical and economic findings of the majority are to be invited to 

submit signed minority reports substantiating the technical or economical basis of their 

judgement. 

In 2006, MBTOC had four Co-Chairs approved by Parties (Dr. Mohamed Besri, Ms. Michelle 

Marcotte, Ms. Marta Pizano, and Dr. Ian Porter) and each MBTOC Co-Chair also serves as a 

Co-Chair of one of the two Subcommittees. Each MBTOC subcommittee Co-Chair has the 

same authority as other Co-Chairs and no Co-Chair has diminished or reduced authority. As 

Chair of the 2006 Methyl Bromide QPS Task Force, Dr. Jonathan Banks was a member of 

TEAP, but not considered a Co-Chair of MBTOC. TEAP Task Forces are ‘Temporary 

Subsidiary Bodies’ that normally conduct their work within a year, but because Parties had 

not submitted information required to complete the work of the QPS Task Force, Parties 

asked the QPS Task Force to continue its work in 2007. 

TEAP had moved Dr. Jonathan Banks from the position of Chair of the QPS Task Force to a 

position of Temporary Co-Chair of the MBTOC-QSC. However, after one Party questioned 

this decision, TEAP realised that its Terms-of-Reference can be interpreted to allow a 

temporary appointment only to replace a departing Co-Chair and therefore suspended the 

temporary appointment of Dr. Jonathan Banks to the position of MBTOC Co-Chair. 

However, Dr. Banks remains as a member of TEAP in 2007 through his position as Task 

Force Co-Chair. 

11.3 Change of Employment for Foams Technical Options Committee Article 

5 Co-Chair 

Dr. Miguel Quintero Guzman, Article 5 Co-Chair of the Foams TOC, has recently 

moved from employment as a university professor in Colombia to a senior position at 

Dow Europe in Switzerland, although his will keep a position as visiting professor at 

the university for at least the next year. Dow Europe has agreed to pay the cost of 

time and travel for his future participation in TEAP and Foams TOC activities. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 151

It is already the case that Jose Pons serves as Co-Chair of the TEAP and Co-Chair 

of the MTOC while owning and operating an Article 5 national company that 

manufactures ODS (HCFC) aerosol products and ozone-safe alternatives to ODS 

aerosol products. However, Dr. Quintero would be the first TOC Co-Chair and TEAP 

member to be employed by a non-A5 multinational company manufacturing ODS 

products and alternatives. 

TEAP has confidence that Dr. Quintero can continue to be an objective and valuable 

member and recommends that Parties confirm his continuing position as Co-Chair of 

the FTOC and member of TEAP. However, in view of his likely continuing residence 

and employment in Switzerland, TEAP will ask the Ozone Secretariat to advertise the 

position of an additional Article 5 FTOC Co-Chair and will present relevant 

candidates for consideration and approval at MOP-19. 

11.4 Notice of Positions Available on the TEAP and its TOCs 

TEAP welcomes nominations of experts for all committees at any time. Currently, TEAP is 

particularly seeking: 

• Article 5 Co-Chair for the Foams Technical Options Committee 

• Article 5 Co-Chair for the Halons Technical Options Committee 

• Article 5 and non-Article 5 Experts in QPS for the Methyl Bromide Technical Options 

Committee (MBTOC-QSC Subcommittee) 

• Expert in nutsedge control for the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee 

(MBTOC-S Subcommittee) 

• Experts in aviation fire protection for the Halons Technical Options Committee 

• Article 5 experts in the manufacture of ODS MDIs and ODS-free alternatives 

11.5 Conflict of Interest 

In response to decisions at MOP-18, TEAP and its TOCs have expanded the scope 

and detail of disclosure reporting and are publishing available summaries in this 

report. Eventually, TEAP hopes to comply with the decision by maintaining the latest 

information on the Ozone Secretariat web site. 

April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 153

ANNEX I: TEAP Member Biographies 

The following contains the background information for all TEAP members as at April 2007. 

Dr. Radhey S. Agarwal

(Refrigeration TOC Co-chair) 

Professor of Mechanical Engineering 

Mechanical Engineering Department 

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi 

India- New Delhi – 110016

Telephone: 91 11 2659 1120 (O), 2658 2160 (R) 

Fax: 91 11 2652 6645 

E-Mail: rsarwal@mech.iitd.ernet.in or 

agarwalrs@gmail.com 

Dr. Radhey S. Agarwal, Co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps 

Technical Options Committee, is the Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the Indian 

Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi). He co-chaired the 2003 HCFC Task Force and the 

2004 Chiller Task Force. IIT Delhi has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol since 

it is one of the academic institutes of higher learning in India. Dr. Agarwal holds a M. Tech. 

and a Ph.D. from IIT Delhi. Dr. Agarwal has been actively pursuing research in the area of 

refrigeration & air-conditioning. He has guided a number of Ph.D. and M. Tech. theses and 

published research papers in the field of refrigeration and air-conditioning. Dr. Agarwal has 

no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own any stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives/substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Agarwal’s spouse has no 

interest in matters related to the Protocol. Dr. Agarwal occasionally takes consultancies and 

advisory roles operated through IIT Delhi from the engineering industry, UNEP, GTZ and 

INFRAS for research & development, technical advice, developing technical manuals and 

training materials etc. IIT Delhi makes in-kind contribution for wages. Cost of travel and 

other expenses related to participation in the TEAP and the RTOC are paid by UNEP’s Ozone 

Secretariat. 

Dr. Stephen O. Andersen 

(Panel Co-chair) 

Director of Strategic Climate Projects 

Climate Protection Partnerships Division 

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

Mail Code 6202J 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

U.S.A.

Telephone: 1 202 343 9069 

Fax: 1 202 343 2379 

E-Mail: andersen.stephen@epa.gov 

Stephen O. Andersen, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel since 

1989, is Director of Strategic Climate Projects in the Climate Protection Partnerships Division 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He chaired and co-chaired the Solvents TOC 

from 1989 to 1995, chaired the 1999 HFC and PFC Task Force, and co-chaired several Task 

Forces. He served on the Steering Committee to the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report 

Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System: Issues Related to 

Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons” and he participated in the Science Assessment 

Panel in 2006. He currently co-chairs the Task Force on the TEAP Legacy. Dr. Andersen’s 

spouse works for the U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs and Toxic Substances in a 

division that registers bio-pesticides, including potential substitutes for methyl bromide. The 

U.S. EPA makes in-kind contributions of wages, travel, communication, and other expenses 

and some travel is sponsored by the U.S. DoD. With approval of its government ethics 

officer, EPA allows expenses to be paid by other governments and organisations such as the 

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). 
154 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Mr. Paul Ashford

(Foams TOC Co-chair) 

Principal Consultant 

Caleb Management Services 

The Old Dairy, Woodend Farm Cromhall, 

Wotton-under-Edge 

Gloucestershire, GL12 8AA 

United Kingdom 

Telephone: 44 1454 269330 

Fax: 44 1454 269197 

Mobile: 44 7774 110 814 

E-Mail: Paul@Calebgroup.net 

Paul Ashford, Co-chair of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee since 

1998 is the owner and managing director of Caleb Management Services Ltd., a consulting 

company working in the chemical regulatory and sustainability arenas. He co-chaired the 

TEAP Task Force on the Supplement Report to the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report: 

Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to 

hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons” (2005) and the Task Force on Emissions 

Discrepancies in 2006. Until 1994, he worked for BP Chemicals in the division that 

developed licensed foam technology using ODS and was responsible for the adoption of 

alternatives. He has over 25 years direct experience of foam related technical issues and has 

conducted numerous studies to characterise the foam sector and inform future policy 

development. His funding for TEAP activities, which includes some sponsorship of time, is 

provided jointly under contract by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the 

Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the UK. Much of his recent 

work on banks, emissions and foam end-of-life management, performed to inform both IPCC 

and TEAP processes has been supported by the US EPA. There is increasing overlap with 

IPCC and UNFCCC objectives in support of greenhouse gas emissions reporting by 

Governments. Other related non-TEAP work is covered under separate contracts from 

relevant commissioning organisations including international agencies (e.g. UNEP DTIE), 

governments, industry associations and corporate clients. A considerable portion of the work 

with private clients relates to the lifecycle assessment of products based on ODS alternatives 

and advice on carbon management strategies. 

Dr. Jonathan Banks 

(QPS Taskforce Chair) 

Grainsmith Pty Ltd 

10 Beltana Rd 

Pialligo ACT 2609 

Australia

Telephone: 61 2 6248 9228 

Fax: 61 2 6248 9228 

E-Mail: apples3@bigpond.com 

Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was a 

member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 

co-chaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He worked as a Research Scientist with the Australian 

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 

on grain storage technologies, including use of improved use of fumigants. He is co-inventor 

of carbonyl sulfide, an alternative fumigant to methyl bromide in some applications. Patent 

rights have been assigned to his employer, CSIRO. Dr Banks has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He has stock in Brambles Ltd, a company that inter alia 

leases wooden pallets for freight. The pallets may or may not be treated with methyl bromide 

or alternatives. His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organic apple orchard. She has no 

financial interests relating to ozone-depleting substances. He has served on some national 

committees concerned with ODS and their control, and within the last 4 years has received 

contracts from UNEP, other institutions and public companies related to methyl bromide 

alternatives and grain storage technology--including training in fumigation (methyl bromide 

and alternatives) and fumigation technology and recapture systems for methyl bromide. In 

2005 and 2006 he received some support from UNEP for TEAP and MBTOC activities. Other 

funding for his MBTOC activities has been through grants or contracts from the Department 

of Environment and Heritage, Australia or from personal contributions. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 155

Prof. Mohamed Besri 

(MBTOC Co-chair) 

Department of Plant Pathology 

Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II 

BP 6202-Instituts 

Rabat, Morocco 

Telephone: 212 37 778 364 (office); 

 212 37 710 148 (home) 

Fax: 212 37 778 364 

Email: m.besri@iav.ac.ma 

Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professor of Plant Pathology and Integrated Disease 

Management at the Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, 

Morocco (HII IAVM). The HII IAVM has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol 

because it houses specialists in Soil-borne Plant Pathogens and MLF projects (strawberries, 

bananas, cut flowers). It advises the Ministry of Agriculture on all aspects of alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide. Dr Besri, his spouse, his business partner and dependant children have no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Besri works 

occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Costs 

associated to travel, communication, and others related to participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, 

and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

 

Mr. David Catchpole 

(Halons TOC Co-chair) 

Technical Consultant 

Petrotechnical Resources Alaska 

Anchorage 

Alaska, U.S.A. 

Telephone 

And fax: 1 907 868 3911 

E-Mail: dcatchpole@gci.net

Mr. David V. Catchpole, Co-Chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee and Member 

of the Technology and Economics Assessment Panel since 2005, works part time for 

Petrotechnical Resources Alaska (PRA), an Anchorage, Alaska based company that provides 

consulting services to oil companies in Alaska. From 1991 to 2004 he was a member of the 

HTOC. From 1970 until 1999, he was an employee of the BP group of companies, most 

recently BP Exploration Alaska, where he worked for nine years in the environmental 

department on alternatives to halon and on halon banking. Mr. Catchpole advises BP 

Exploration Alaska on fire protection and halon issues as his main activity for PRA. BP 

Exploration Alaska has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it uses halon 

1301 for explosion prevention and fire suppression in its enclosed oil and gas processing 

modules on the North Slope of Alaska. Mr. Catchpole has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, however his retirement portfolio contains stock in BP plc. 

Mr. Catchpole’s spouse does not work for or consult for any organisation that has an interest 

in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. His spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. 

Mr. Catchpole typically receives funding to support salary and travel to TEAP/TOC meetings 

from the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Department of 

Defense; and the Halon Recycling Corporation and the Halon Alternatives Research 

Corporation, which are not-for-profit industry coalitions that in turn receive contributions for 

this funding from members. Contributors are: BP Exploration Alaska, ConocoPhillips Alaska, 

DuPont, Chemtura, American Pacific, Firetrace, Halon Banking Systems, Westco and Remtec. 
156 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Prof. Dr. Biao Jiang 

(Chemicals TOC Co-chair) 

Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry 

(SIOC), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) 

354 Fenglin Road 

Shanghai 200032 

The People’s Republic of China 

Telephone: 86 21 54925201 

Fax: 81 21 64166128 

E-Mail: jiangb@mail.sioc.ac.cn

Dr Biao Jiang, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee since 2005, is 

Professor of Chemistry of Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, Chinese Academy Of 

Sciences and a member of editorial advisory board of Chemical Communication, Royal 

Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom. Professor Jiang involves in the research and the 

development of new methodology of organic synthesis, medicinal chemistry, fluorine 

chemistry as well as organic process research and development of clean chemistry. Dr Jiang 

has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does he own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Costs of travel, 

communication, and other expenses related to participation in the TEAP, its Chemicals TOC, 

and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Dr. Lambert Kuijpers

(Panel Co-chair, Refrigeration TOC Co-chair) 

Technical University Pav B24 

P.O. Box 513 

NL – 5600 MB Eindhoven 

The Netherlands 

Telephone: 31 49 247 6371 / 31 40 247 4463 

Home: 31 77 354 6742 

Fax: 31 40 246 6627 

E-Mail: lambermp@wxs.nl, lambermp@planet.nl 

Lambert Kuijpers, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel since 1992 

and Co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options 

Committee since 1989, works on a part-time basis for the Department “Technology for 

Sustainable Development” at the Technical University Eindhoven, The Netherlands. He is a 

member of the Task Force on the TEAP legacy; he co-chaired the Replenishment Task Forces 

between 1996 and 2005. He served on the Steering Committee to the “IPCC/TEAP Special 

Report “Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to 

Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”, he co-chaired the 2005 Task Force for the TEAP 

Supplementary Report to the IPCC/TEAP Special Report and the 2006 Task Force on 

Emissions Discrepancies. He was a member of the Science Assessment Panel in 2005-2006. 

Until 1993, he worked for Philips in the development of refrigeration, air conditioning, and 

heat pump systems to use alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. He is financially 

supported (through the UNEP Ozone Secretariat) by the European Commission (and in certain 

years by some EU member state governments) for his activities related to the TEAP and the 

Refrigeration TOC. The general lack of adequate funding and also the high variability of 

available funding per year imply that, in many recent years, Dr. Kuijpers had to add 

significant voluntary contributions from private funds. Dr. Kuijpers has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS. He occasionally is a consultant to governmental 

and non-governmental organisations, such as the World Bank, UNEP DTIE and the 

Multilateral Fund (e.g. for the 2006 Expert Meeting). Dr. Kuijpers is also an advisor to the 

Re/genT Company, Netherlands, which he co-founded in 1993 and where he still has a 

minority interest (R&D of components and equipment for refrigeration, air-conditioning and 

heating). 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 157

Ms. Michelle Marcotte 

Marcotte Consulting 

(Marcotte Consulting is located in Canada) 

home address: 

10104 East Franklin Ave 

Glenn Dale, Maryland 20769 

USA 

Telephone: (301) 262-9866 

E-mail: marcotteconsulting@comcast.net 

 www.marcotteconsulting.com 

Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and 

subsequently a member of the Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee between 1992 

and 2005; she was confirmed as Co-Chair in 2005. Until 1993 she worked for MDS Nordion, 

a supplier of radiation processing equipment which is an alternative to the use of methyl 

bromide in some commodity and quarantine situations. Since then, Ms Marcotte, through 

Marcotte Consulting, has provided consulting services to governments and agri-food 

companies in eight countries on agri-environmental issues, food technology, regulatory affairs 

and radiation processing. Marcotte Consulting has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because of its long time market development work in food irradiation, an alternative 

to some methyl bromide uses, and because of its interest in food processing, food safety and 

trade. In the field of methyl bromide alternatives, Ms Marcotte has published case studies in 

pest control in food processing, in stored commodities, in alternatives for quarantine and in 

greenhouse use. She is a member of the Canada Industry-Government Methyl Bromide 

Working Group and the Canada-US Methyl Bromide Working Group; both organisations 

work to achieve the phase-out of methyl bromide in the agri-food sector. Marcotte has 

consulted to companies, industry associations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and 

US AID on irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and 

trade. She has also prepared consulting reports summarising research in methyl bromide 

alternatives and case studies on food processing for the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. Ms Marcotte has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does 

not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Ms 

Marcotte’s spouse works for United States Department of Agriculture managing research in 

methyl bromide alternatives and is a member of MBTOC. He does not have proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Ms Marcotte receives a consulting contract from 

the Government of Canada, Environment Canada. The funds for Ms Marcotte for travel to 

TEAP, MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings and to support her work on the MBTOC are 

provided by the the Government of Canada, Environment Canada. 

Mr. E. Thomas Morehouse

(Senior Expert Member) 

Institute for Defense Analyses 

4850, Mark Center Drive 

Alexandria, VA 22311 

U.S.A.

Telephone: 1 703 750 6840 

Fax: 1 703 750 6835 

E-Mail: tom.morehouse@verizon.net

Thomas Morehouse, Senior Expert Member for Military Issues since 1997, is a Research 

Adjunct at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), Washington D.C., USA. From 1989 

until 1996 he co-chaired the Halons TOC. From 1986 to 1989 he was an officer in the United 

States Air Force responsible for developing alternatives to halon. From 1989 until 1994 his 

responsibilities as an Air Force officer included broader environmental and energy policy 

issues for the U.S. Department of Defense. Mr. Morehouse’s spouse works for the U.S. 

National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in a position that plans 

long term spending for NOAA, including research and operations affecting stratospheric 

ozone and climate. IDA makes in-kind contributions of communications and miscellaneous 

expenses. Funding for wages and travel is provided by grants from the Department of 

Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency. IDA is a not-for-profit Federally Funded 

Research Center (FFRDC) that undertakes work exclusively for the US Department of 

Defense. He also occasionally consults independently to corporate clients, national 

laboratories and other government agencies on environmental and energy related issues. Mr 
158 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Morehouse –and his spouse- have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, nor do they own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs. 

Ms. Marta Pizano 

(MBTOC Co-chair) 

Consultant 

Calle 85 No. 20 – 25 Of 202B 

Bogotá, Colombia 

Telephone: 57 1 6348020 or 5302036 

Fax: 57 1 2362554 

E-mail: mpizano@unete.com

Ms Marta Pizano is a consultant on methyl bromide alternatives, particularly for cut flower 

production, and has actively promoted methyl bromide alternatives among growers in many 

countries. She is a regular consultant for the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund (MLF) and 

its implementing agencies. In this capacity, she has contributed to the methyl bromide phaseout programs in nearly twenty Article 5 countries around the world, assisting growers with the 

adoption of sustainable alternatives and the implementation of IPM programs. She is a 

frequent speaker at national and international methyl bromide conferences and has authored 

numerous articles and publications on alternatives to this fumigant. She has been a member of 

MBTOC since 1998 and a co-chair since 2005. Neither Ms Pizano nor her husband or their 

children own stock or have proprietary interest in companies producing ODS or their 

alternatives or substitutes. Costs associated to travel, communication, and others related to 

participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by 

UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Mr. Jose Pons Pons

(Panel Co-chair, Medical TOC Co-chair) 

Spray Quimica 

Urb.Ind.Soco, Calle Sur #14 

La Victoria 2121, Edo Aragua 

Venezuela

Telephone: 58 244 3223297 or 3214079 or 3223891 

Fax: 58 244 3220192 

E-Mail: joseipons@telcel.net.ve 

Jose Pons, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Medical 

Technical Options Committee and Member of the 2007 Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, is 

President of Spray Química C.A. Jose Pons is a full time manager/engineer at the Spray 

Química aerosol filling plant in La Victoria, Venezuela. Spray Química has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because it used, and still uses, ODS in some of its aerosol 

products for industrial maintenance. Mr Pons has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and 

does not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODS. Mr Pons’s spouse has no 

interest in matters before the Protocol; she is also a manager/engineer at Spray Química. Mr 

Pons has worked occasionally as a consultant to MLF on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. The Task Force worked by e-mail and there was no travel or other expenses paid by 

any organisations to participate in this activity. Travel related to participation in the TEAP 

and MTOC, and relevant Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. Spray 

Química makes in-kind contributions of wage, and miscellaneous and communication 

expenses. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 159

Dr. Ian J. Porter

(MBTOC Co-chair) 

Principal Researcher, Plant Pathology 

Primary Industries Research Victoria 

Department of Primary Industries 

Private Bag 15, Ferntree Gully Delivery Centre 3156, 

Victoria, Australia.

Telephone: 61 3 9210 9222 

Fax: 61 3 9800 3521 

Mobile: 61 (0)417 544 080 

Email: ian.j.porter@dpi.vic.gov.au 

Dr Ian Porter is the Statewide Leader of Plant Pathology with the Victorian 

Department of Primary Industries (DPI). DPI has an interest in developing sustainable 

control measures for plant pathogens and biosecurity. He is a member of a number 

of National Committees regulating ODS, has led the Australian research program on 

methyl bromide alternatives for soils and has 26 years experience in researching 

sustainable methods for soil disinfestation of plant pathogens with over 200 research 

publications. He has been a member of MBTOC since 1997, Soils sub committee 

chair since 2001 and MBTOC Co-chair since 2005. Neither Dr Ian Porter, wife or 

children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is presently 

assisting national research agencies in Australia develop national priorities for IPM 

and soil health. He has acted occasionally as a key consultant for UNEP and UNIDO 

in developing programmes to assist China, Mexico and CEIT countries to replace 

methyl bromide. The Victorian DPI has in the past made in-kind contributions to 

attend MBTOC and UNEP meetings, but provides no support at present. In 2007, Dr 

Porter funds his own participation. The Australian Federal Government Research Fund 

and funds obtained through the Ozone Secretariat have provided support to finance 

travel and expenses for MBTOC activities. 

Prof. Miguel W. Quintero

(Foams TOC Co-chair) 

P.U. R&D Development Leader 

Dow Europe GmbH 

Wolleraustrasse 15-17 

CH-8807 Freienbach 

Switzerland

Telephone: +41 55 416 87 00 

Fax: +41 55 416 87 01 

E-Mail: mwquintero@dow.com 

Prof. Miguel W. Quintero, Co-chair of the Foams Technical Options Committee since 2002, 

has been a professor at the Chemical Engineering Department at Universidad de los Andes in 

Bogota, Colombia, in the areas of polymer processing and transport phenomena during 2000-

2006, where he is now a visiting professor. Prof. Quintero worked during 21 years (until 

2000) for Dow Chemical at the Research & Development and Technical Service & 

Development Departments in the area of rigid polyurethane foam. In January 2007, he 

returned to Dow Europe as Development Leader for Polyurethane Product Research, located 

in Freienbach, Switzerland. He owns stock in companies that now or previously 

manufactured ozone-depleting substances and products made with or containing ozonedepleting substances and their substitutes and alternatives. He has been a regular consultant 

for the Montreal Protocol’s implementing agencies. The participation of Prof. Quintero in 

TEAP and FTOC related activities is funded by Dow Chemical. 

Dr. Ian D. Rae 

(Chemicals TOC Co-Chair) 

16 Bates Drive 

Williamstown, Vic 3016 

Australia

Telephone: 61 3 9397 3794 

Fax: 61 3 9397 3794 

E-mail: idrae@unimelb.edu.au 

Dr. Rae, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee since 2005, is a Honorary 

Professorial Fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and a member of advisory 

bodies for several Australian government agencies dealing with chemical issues and in 
160 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

particular the Stockholm Convention. He co-chaired the 2001 and 2004 Process Agent Task 

Forces. He is a member of the POPs Review Committee for the Stockholm Convention. On 

occasions, he acts as consultant to government agencies and to universities and companies and 

he has been an expert witness in a case involving alleged patent infringement involving HFC134a and its lubricants. He contributes the time for his own participation in TEAP activities. 

The Australian Government Department of the Environment and Water Resources finances 

the cost of travel and accommodation for Dr. Rae’s attendance at meetings of the CTOC, 

TEAP, OEWG and MOP. 

Mr. K. Madhava Sarma

(Senior Expert Member) 

AB50, Anna Nagar, 

Chennai 600 040 

India 

Telephone: 91 44 2626 8924 

Fax: 91 44 4217 0932 

E-mail: sarma_madhava@yahoo.com 

K. Madhava Sarma, Senior Expert Member since 2001, and member of the Task Force on the 

TEAP Legacy, retired in 2000, after nine years as Executive Secretary, Ozone Secretariat, 

UNEP. Earlier, he was a senior official in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), 

Government of India and held various senior positions in a state government in India. He 

works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP and is an unpaid member of the Technical and 

Finance Committee of the Ozone Cell, MOEF, Government of India. He is working on a 

research and writing project on technology transfer and change for the protection of the ozone 

layer financed by the Global Environmental Facility (GEF). Neither he or his spouse own 

stock in any company connected to ODS or alternatives or substitutes. Costs of travel, 

communication, and other expenses related to participation in the TEAP and relevant 

Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Ms. Kristen Taddonio 

(Task Force on Legacy co-chair) 

Strategic Climate Projects Manager 

Climate Protection Partnerships Division 

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building 

Mail Code 6202J 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

U.S.A.

Fax: 1 202 343 2379 

E-Mail: taddonio.kristen@epa.gov 

Kristen Taddonio is Co-chair of the Task Force on TEAP Legacy in 2007. The Task Force 

worked via the internet and never met as a group. A student from the University of California, 

Ms. Liu Liu, assisted with developing and proofing the extensive TEAP membership database 

that is one analytical basis of the report. In conjunction with other meetings, Ms. Taddonio 

met with the TEAP to complete the report. The U.S. EPA makes in-kind contributions of 

wages, communication and other expenses. Ms. Taddonio and her immediate family have no 

priority interest in alternatives and substitutes to ODS, do not own stocks in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives and do not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODS. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 161

Dr. Helen Tope

(Medical TOC Co-chair) 

Senior Policy Officer – Global Issues 

Atmosphere and Noise Unit 

EPA Victoria 

GPO Box 4395QQ 

Melbourne, Victoria 3001 

Australia

Telephone: 61 3 9695 2637 

Fax: 61 3 9695 2578 

E-Mail: helen.tope@epa.vic.gov.au 

Helen Tope, Co-chair Medical Technical Options Committee since 1995, Member of the 2007 

Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, is Principal Consultant of Energy International Australia 

(since 2006) and also Director of Planet Futures (since 2007) with whom she is an 

independent consultant providing strategic, policy and technical advice and facilitation 

services to government, industry and other non-governmental organisations on climate 

change, ozone-depleting substances, and other environmental issues. Dr Tope’s business has 

an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because her potential clients are also 

interested in these topics. Dr Tope has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, 

does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not currently 

consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr Tope’s spouse has no interest in 

matters before the Protocol. The Ozone Secretariat provides a grant for travel, 

communication, and other expenses of the Medical Technical Options Committee from funds 

granted to the Secretariat unconditionally by the International Pharmaceutical Aerosol 

Consortium (IPAC). IPAC is a non-profit corporation. 

Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik

(Halons TOC Co-chair) 

Hughes Associates 

3610 Commerce Drive, STE 817 

Baltimore, MD 21227-1652 

U. S. A.

Telephone: 1 443 253 7587 

Fax: 1 410 737 8688 

E-Mail: danv@haifire.com

Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik, Co-Chair, Halons Technical Options Committee and Member, 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel is the Director, Environmental Programs, 

Hughes Associates, Inc. Dr. Verdonik is a full time, salaried employee at Hughes Associates, 

Inc., in Baltimore, MD and Arlington, VA providing consulting services in fire protection and 

environmental management. Hughes Associates, Inc. has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because it provides a wide range of fire protection research, design and 

consulting services to government and corporate clients, including work related to halons and 

halon alternatives. Dr. Verdonik has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs 

and through Hughes Associates, Inc. provides consulting services for organisations seeking to 

phase-out ODSs. Dr. Verdonik is a partner in Hughes Associates, Inc., which does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Verdonik 

currently provides consulting services through Hughes Associates, Inc, for the U.S. Army and 

U.S. Navy on matters related to the Montreal Protocol and has previously provided services 

through Hughes Associates Inc. for Implementing Agencies, U.S. EPA, U.S. Air Force and 

Chemtura. Dr. Verdonik’s spouse works for the U.S. Army, which has an interest in the topics 

of the Montreal Protocol because it is trying to phase-out halons but in the interim, continues 

to rely on halons for purposes of national security. Dr. Verdonik’s spouse and dependant 

child have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for 

organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Hughes Associates, Inc. typically receives funding 

to support Dr. Verdonik’s salary and travel to TEAP/HTOC/TSB meetings from MLF, UNEP, 

the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, the Halon Recycling Corporation, and the Halon Alternatives Research 

Corporation, who in-turn currently receives funding to support these efforts from the 
162 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

following sponsors: BP Exploration, Alaska, ConocoPhillips, Alaska; DuPont; Chemtura; 

American Pacific; Firetrace; Halon Banking Systems; Wesco; Remtec. From time-to-time, 

Hughes Associates, Inc may also provide support for labor and travel. 

Prof. Ashley Woodcock

(Medical TOC Co-chair) 

North West Lung Centre 

South Manchester University Hospital Trust 

Manchester M23 9LT 

United Kingdom

Telephone: 44 161 291 2398 

Fax: 44 161 291 5020 

E-Mail: Ashley.A.Woodcock@manchester.ac.uk

Prof. Ashley Woodcock, Co-chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee and Member 

of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel, is a Respiratory physician at the South 

Manchester University Teaching Hospital. Prof. Woodcock is a full time physician and 

academic at the North West Lung Centre Manchester United Kingdom. The Hospital and 

University have no direct interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Prof. Woodcock has 

no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome 

of essential use nominations. Prof. Woodcock carries out unrelated consulting and 

educational lectures for pharmaceutical companies, some of which have continued to produce 

CFC MDIs, and some of which have sought to accelerate phase out of CFC MDIs. He 

regularly advises companies on study design for new drugs, some of which have been ODS 

replacements. Prof. Woodcock’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Prof. 

Woodcock does not work as a consultant to the UN, UNEP, MLF or Implementing Agencies. 

In the past, he has responded to requests for technical information on CFC MDI phase-out 

from the European Community and the United Kingdom Government. Travel and subsistence 

for meetings of TEAP, MTOC, OEWG, MOP meetings is paid by the UK Department of 

Environment, and Prof. Woodcock’s employer allows leave of absence. 

Dr. Masaaki Yamabe

(Chemicals TOC Co-chair) 

National Institute of Advanced Industrial 

Science and Technology (AIST) 

1-1-1 Umezono, Tsukuba 

Ibaraki 305-8568 

Japan

Telephone: 81 29 862 6032 

Fax: 81 29 862 6048 

E-Mail: m-yamabe@aist.go.jp

Dr. Masaaki Yamabe, Co-Chair of the Chemical Technical Options Committee since 2005, is 

research coordinator (Environment and Energy) at the AIST. He is a member of the Task 

Force on the TEAP Legacy and he co-chaired the 2004 Process Agent Task Force. He was a 

member of the Solvents TOC during 1990-1996. Until 1999, Dr. Yamabe was Director of 

Central Research for Asahi Glass Company, which previously produced CFCs, methyl 

chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride, and currently produces and distributes HCFC, carbon 

tetrachloride, and HFCs. He is the co-inventor of HCFC-225, which is controlled under the 

Montreal Protocol as a transitional substance in the phase-out of ozone-depleting substances 

and is a substitute for CFC-113 in solvent and process agent applications. He owns stock in 

Asahi Glass Company that produces ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes. He also 

works for the Japan Industrial Conference for Ozone Layer and Climate Protection (JICOP) as 

a senior advisor. AIST generally pays wages, travelling and other expenses, except in some 

cases where JICOP sponsors travel. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 163

Prof. Shiqiu Zhang

(Senior Expert Member) 

College for Environmental Sciences 

Peking University 

Beijing 100871 

The People’s Republic of China

Telephone: 86 10-627-64974 

Fax: 86 10-627-60755 

Email: zhangshq@pku.edu.cn

Dr. Shiqiu Zhang, Senior Expert Member for economic issues of the TEAP since 1997, is a 

Professor on Environmental Economics and Policy at the College for Environmental Sciences 

of Peking University. She is a member of the Task Force on the TEAP Legacy and co-chaired 

the 2002 and 2005 Replenishment Task Forces. She is involved in the work to help the 

Chinese government to develop the country program for the phase-out of ODS, and in studies 

of related relevant policies. She occasionally consults for UNEP. Dr. Zhang has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Costs of travel, 

communication, and other expenses related to participation in the TEAP and relevant 

Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 
164 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

ANNEX II: TEAP-TOC Membership Lists Status March 2007 

Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) 

Co-chairs Affiliation Country 

Stephen O. Andersen Environmental Protection Agency USA 

Lambert Kuijpers Technical University Eindhoven Netherlands 

Jose Pons Pons Spray Quimica Venezuela 

Senior Expert Members Affiliation Country 

Thomas Morehouse Institute for Defense Analyses USA 

K. Madhava Sarma Consultant India 

Shiqiu Zhang Center of Environmental Sciences, Peking University China 

TOC Chairs Affiliation Country 

Radhey S. Agarwal Indian Institute of Technology Delhi India 

Paul Ashford Caleb Management Services UK 

Jonathan Banks Consultant Australia 

Mohamed Besri Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II Morocco 

Biao Jiang Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry China 

David Catchpole Petrotechnical Resources Alaska UK 

Michelle Marcotte Marcotte Consulting LLC and Marcotte Consulting Inc Canada 

Marta Pizano Consultant Colombia 

Ian Porter Department of Primary Industries Australia 

Miguel Quintero Universidad de los Andes Colombia 

Ian Rae University of Melbourne Australia 

Helen Tope EPA, Victoria Australia 

Ashley Woodcock Wythenshawe Hospital UK 

Daniel Verdonik Hughes Associates USA 

Masaaki Yamabe National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and 

Technology 

Japan 

TEAP Chemicals Technical Options Committee (CTOC)

Co-chairs Affiliation Country 

Biao Jiang Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry China 

Ian Rae University of Melbourne Australia 

Masaaki Yamabe National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and 

Technology 

Japan 

Members Affiliation Country 

D. D. Arora The Energy Research Institute India 

Steven Bernhardt Honeywell USA 

Olga Blinova Russian Scientific Center “Applied Chemistry” Russia 

Nick Campbell Arkema Group France 

Bruno Costes Airbus Industries France 

Jianxin Hu Center of Environmental Sciences, Peking University China 

A.A. Khan Indian Institute of Chemical Technology India 

Michael Kishimba University of Dar-es-Salaam Tanzania 

Abid Merchant Consultant USA 

Koichi Mizuno National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and 

Technology 

Japan 

Claudia Paratori Environmental Consultant Chile 

Hans Porre Teijin Twaron Netherlands 

Shuniti Samejima Asahi Glass Foundation Japan 

John Stemniski Consultant USA 

Fatima Al-Shatti Kuwait Petroleum Corporation Kuwait 

Peter Verge Boeing Manufacturing USA 

Nee Sun Choong Kwet 

Yive (Robert) 

University of Mauritius Mauritius 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 165

TEAP Flexible and Rigid Foams Technical Options Committee (FTOC) 

Co-chairs Affiliation Country 

Paul Ashford Caleb Management Services UK 

Miguel Quintero Dow Europe GmbH / Universidad de Los Andes Switzerland 

Members Affiliation Country 

Kyoshi Hara JUFA Japan 

Mike Hayslett Maytag/AHAM USA 

Mike Jeffs ISOPA Belgium

Shigeru Wakana Dow Japan 

Suzie Kocchi Environmental Protection Agency USA 

Candido Lomba ABRIPUR Brazil 

Yehia Lotfi Technocom Egypt 

Kirsten Makel Arkema USA 

Christoph Meurer Solvay Germany 

Mudumbai Sarangapani Polyurethane Council of India India 

Ulrich Schmidt Haltermann/Dow Germany 

Bert Veenendaal RAPPA USA 

Mark Weick Dow USA 

Dave Williams Honeywell USA 

Jinhuang Wu Huntsman USA 

Qiang Xu Shanghai Haohai Chemical Corporation China 

Allen Zhang Owens Corning China 

TEAP Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) 

Co-chairs Affiliation Country 

David V. Catchpole Petrotechnical Resources Alaska UK 

Daniel P. Verdonik Hughes Associates USA 

Members Affiliation Country 

Ahmad AL-Khatib Ministry of Environment Jordan 

Geok Kwang Boo Civil Defence Force Singapore 

Fareed Bushehri UNEP Bahrain 

Seunghwan (Charles) Choi Hanju Chemical Co., Ltd. South Korea 

Michelle Collins Consultant USA 

Andrew Greig Protection Projects Inc. South Africa 

Matsuo Ishiyama Halon Recycling & Support Committee Japan 

H.S. Kaprwan Consultant India 

Nikolai P. Kopylov All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection Russia 

Barbara KucnerowiczPolak State Fire Services Headquarters Poland 

David Liddy Ministry of Defence UK 

Bella Maranion US EPA USA 

John O’Sullivan, MBE British Airways UK 

Erik Pedersen World Bank Denmark 

Donald Thomson MOPIA Canada 

Robert Wickham Wickham Associates USA 

Kaixuan Zhou CAAC-AAD China 

Consulting Experts Affiliation Country 

Tom Cortina HARC USA 

Sergey Kopylov All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection Russia 

Steve McCormick United States Army USA 

Jawad Rida National Concorde Est. Jordan 

Mark Robin DuPont USA 

Joseph Senecal Kidde-Fenwal USA 

Ronald S. Sheinson Naval Research Laboratory – Department of the Navy USA 

Ronald Sibley Defense Supply Center, Richmond USA 

Mitsuro Yagi Fire and Environment Protection Network Japan 
166 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

TEAP Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC) 

Co-chairs Affiliation Country 

Jose Pons Pons Spray Quimica Venezuela 

Helen Tope Energy International Australia Australia 

Ashley Woodcock University Hospital of South Manchester UK 

Members Affiliation Country 

Emmanual Addo-Yobo Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ghana 

Paul Atkins Oriel Therapeutics Inc. USA 

Sidney Braman Rhode Island Hospital USA 

Yingyun Cai Zhongshan Hospital China 

Nick Campbell Arkema SA France 

Hisbello Campos Centro de Referencia Prof. Helio Fraga, Ministry of Health Brazil 

Jorge Caneva Favaloro Foundation Argentina 

Christer Carling Private Consultant Sweden 

Mike Devoy Bayer Schering Pharma AG Germany 

Antoine Haddad Chiesi Farmaceutici Italy 

Charles Hancock Charles O. Hancock Associates USA 

Eamonn Hoxey Johnson & Johnson UK 

Javaid Khan The Aga Khan University Pakistan 

Nasser Mazhari Sina Darou Laboratories Company Iran 

Robert Meyer Food and Drug Administration USA 

Hideo Mori Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Japan 

Tunde Otulana Aradigm Corporation USA 

John Pritchard AstraZeneca UK 

Raj Singh The Chest Centre India 

Roland Stechert Boehringer Ingelheim (Schweiz) Switzerland 

Adam Wanner University of Miami USA 

Kristine Whorlow National Asthma Council Australia Australia 

You Yizhong Journal of Aerosol Communication China 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 167

TEAP Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee (MBTOC) 

Co-chairs Affiliation Country 

Mohamed Besri Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II Morocco 

Michelle Marcotte Marcotte Consulting Canada 

Marta Pizano Consultant Colombia 

Ian Porter Department of Primary Industries Australia 

 

Members Affiliation Country 

Alessandro Amadio UNIDO Italy 

Marten Barel Consultant Netherlands 

Jonathan Banks Consultant Australia 

Chris Bell Central Science Laboratory UK 

Antonio Bello Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales Spain 

Aocheng Cao Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences China 

Peter Caulkins US Environmental Protection Agency USA 

Fabio Chaverri IRET-Universidad Nacional Costa Rica 

Ricardo Deang Consultant Philippines 

Patrick Ducom Ministère de l’Agriculture France 

Abraham Gamliel Agricultural Research Organisation Israel 

Darka Hamel Inst. For Plant Protection in Ag. And Forestry Croatia 

Saad Hafez University of Idaho USA 

Mokhtarud-Din Bin Husain Department of Agriculture Malaysia 

George Lazarovits Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Canada 

Nahum Marbán Mendoza Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo México 

Carlos Medeiros EMBRAPA Brazil 

Melanie Miller Consultant Belgium 

Andrea Minuto Agroinnova Universitá di Torino Italy 

Takashi Misumi MAFF Japan 

Kazufumi Nishi Nat Institute of Vegetables and Tea Science Japan 

David Okioga Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources Kenya 

Christoph Reichmuth BBAGermany Germany 

Jordi Riudavets IRTA – Department of Plant Protection Spain 

Ariane Elmas Saade UNDP Lebanon 

John Sansone SCC Products USA 

Jim Schaub US Department of Agriculture USA 

Sally Schneider US Department of Agriculture USA 

JL Staphorst Plant Protection Research Institute South Africa 

Akio Tateya Japan Fumigation Technology Association Japan 

Robert Taylor Consultant UK 

Alejandro Valeiro Department of Agriculture Argentina 

Ken Vick United States Department of Agriculture USA 

Nick Vink University of Stellenbosch South Africa 

Chris Watson IGROX UK 

Jim Wells Environmental Solutions Group USA 
168 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

TEAP Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee 

(RTOC) 

Co-chair Affiliation Country 

Radhey S. Agarwal Indian Institute of Technology Delhi India 

Lambert Kuijpers Technical University Eindhoven Netherlands 

 

Members Affiliation Country 

James A. Baker Delphi Automotive Systems USA 

Julius Banks Environmental Protection Agency USA 

Dariusz Butrymowicz Institute of Fluid Flow Machinery Poland 

James M. Calm Engineering Consultant USA 

Guangming Chen Inst. Refrigeration and Cryogenic Eng., Shanghai China 

Denis Clodic Ecole des Mines France 

Daniel Colbourne Consultant UK 

Jim Crawford Trane /American Standard USA 

Sukumar Devotta National Env. Eng. Research Institute (NEERI) India 

Kenneth E. Hickman York – Consultant USA 

Takuo Hirahara (temp.) Mitsubushi Electric Corp. Japan 

Martien Janssen Re/gent Netherlands 

Makoto Kaibara Matsushita Electric Industrial Corporation Japan 

Ftouh Kallel Sofrifac Tunisia 

Michael Kauffeld Fachhochschule Karlsruhe Germany 

Fred Keller Carrier Corporation USA 

Jürgen Köhler University of Braunschweig Germany 

Holger König Jaeggi / Guentner Germany 

Edward J. McInerney Consultant USA 

Petter Nekså SINTEF Energy Research Norway 

Hezekiah B. Okeyo Ministry of Industrial Development Kenya 

Andy Pearson Star Refrigeration UK 

Per Henrik Pedersen Danish Technological Institute Denmark 

Roberto de A. Peixoto IMT, Maua Technological Institute Brazil 

Frederique Sauer Dehon Service France 

Adam M. Sebbit Makerere University Uganda 

Arnon Simakulthorn Thai Compressor Manufacturing Thailand 

Aryadi Suwono Thermodynamic Research Lab Bandung University Indonesia 

Peter Tomlein Slovak Refrigeration Association Slovakia 

Pham Van Tho Ministry of Fisheries Vietnam 

Vassily Tselikov ICP "Ozone" Russia 

Paulo Vodianitskaia Multibras Electrodomesticos Brazil 

Jianjun Zhang Zhejian Lantian Env Protection Hi-Tech Co China 

Attila Zoltan Refrigeration Association Hungary 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 169

ANNEX III: TOC Members – Disclosure of Interest, status March 

2007 

AIII.1 Disclosure of Interest Declarations MTOC 

Emmanuel Addo-Yobo Ghana (A5) 

Emmanuel Addo-Yobo, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2005, is a full 

time Specialist Paediatrician and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Child Health, Kwame 

Nkrumah University Sciences and Technology, and the Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital, 

Kumasi, Ghana, with a special interest in paediatric pulmonology. Dr Addo-Yobo is the physician 

in charge of paediatric asthma in the hospital and has been involved in several research activities 

on childhood asthma epidemiology in Ghana as Principal or Co-Investigator, some of which have 

been sponsored partly or fully by pharmaceutical companies. Dr Addo-Yobo has attended an 

American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology (AAAAI) meeting sponsored by a 

pharmaceutical company in 1999. Dr Addo-Yobo does not receive any form of remuneration from 

any drug companies. The UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat funds his travels for MTOC meetings. Dr 

Addo-Yobo’s spouse is a business secretary work ing with a local financial institution. 

Paul J.Atkins USA (Non-A5) 

Dr Paul Atkins, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1993, is the full time 

Chief Executive Officer of Oriel Therapeutics Inc, a privately held pulmonary drug delivery 

company based in Research Triangle Park, USA. Oriel Therapeutics Inc. has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is developing active dry powder inhalers. Dr Atkins has 

a proprietary interest in developing alternatives to ODS-based MDIs and owns stock in Oriel 

Therapeutics, Inc. Dr Atkins has an extensive background in both MDI and DPI product 

development and commercialisation and is an internationally recognised expert in this area. 

Previously Dr Atkins was employed by GlaxoSmithKline, a leading provider of inhaled medicines 

including CFC based MDIs, and his spouse is currently a GlaxoSmithKline employee and owns 

stock in that company. Dr Atkins has worked occasionally as a consultant for both MLF and 

UNDP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MTOC meetings has been paid by 

either his employer or out of his personal funds. 

Sidney Stuart Braman USA (Non-A5) 

Dr Sidney Braman, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2005, is a 

Professor of Medicine at Brown Medical School and Director of the Division of Pulmonary and 

Critical Care Medicine at Brown University and the Rhode Island Hospital. These organizations 

have no direct interest or business relating to the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr Braman has 

no proprietary interest to alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of 

essential use nominations and does consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODS but does 

not consult on these products. He has received research grant support and been a consultant to 

several pharmaceutical companies relating to research on new drug development. Dr Braman has 

not received any consultancy fees for work related to or associated with the Montreal Protocol. Dr 

Braman’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr Braman does not work as a 

consultant on matters relates to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to the MTOC meetings is provided 

by the American Thoracic Society. 

Prof. Yingyun Cai China (A5) 

Prof. Yingyun Cai, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2005, is a 

professor of Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University. Yingyun Cai is a full time physician 

in Zhongshan Hospital affiliated to Fudan University as the vice-director of the Institute of 

Respiratory Diseases and the director of the Department of Geriatrics, mainly engaging in asthma 

and COPD. Yingyun Cai has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an 

interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not consult for organizations seeking 

to phase out ODS. Yingyun Cai’s spouse, a retired physician, also has no interest in matters before 

the Montreal Protocol. UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat pays for travel to MTOC meetings. 

Nick Campbell France (A5) 

Dr. Nick Campbell has been a member of this Technical Options Committee since 1991. Dr 

Campbell has spent 19 years working primarily on the ozone layer issue and climate change. Dr 

Campbell works for ARKEMA SA, based in Paris, as the Environment Manager for the 

Fluorinated Products Division. ARKEMA SA is a producer of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs. 

ARKEMA SA supports his participation and travel on MTOC. Dr Campbell has stock options in 

ARKEMA SA. He is Chairman of the European Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC) that 
170 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

represents the producers of fluorocarbons in the European Union and the European Chemical 

Industry Council (CEFIC) Working Party on Climate Change. Dr Campbell is also the Chairman 

of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Working Party on Climate Change and the 

Chairman of the BusinessEurope Climate Change Working group, representing European Union 

Employers’ federations. Dr Campbell has been a member of the World Bank’s Ozone Operations 

Resource Group. Nick was a Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs 

and PFCs (April, 2005). Dr Campbell was awarded a 1997 United States EPA Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection Award for his role in the phase-out of ODS. 

Hisbello Campos Brazil (A5) 

Dr. Hisbello S. Campos, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1997, is a 

medical physician (pulmonologist) who works for Brazil ́s Ministry of Health at Centro de 

Referencia Prof. Helio Fraga. Dr Campos is a full time physician at the Centro de Referencia Prof. 

Helio Fraga and gives medical consultations at his private office. The Centro de Referencia Prof. 

Helio Fraga has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the government 

department responsible for proposing guidelines for respiratory diseases control. Dr Campos has 

no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of 

essential use nominations, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr 

Campos’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr Campos works occasionally as 

a consultant to the Brazilian Government on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to 

TOC meetings is paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Jorge Osvaldo Cáneva Argentina (A5) 

Dr. Jorge Osvaldo Cáneva is member of the MTOC since 2007. His full-time job is as Chief of the 

Pulmonary Section of the Cardiovascular Institute at the Favaloro Foundation (Buenos Aires, 

Argentina), since it was established in 1992. Currently Dr Cáneva states as President of the 

Argentine Association of Respiratory Medicine (Asociación Argentina de Medicina Respiratoria), 

main association in pulmonary medicine in Argentina. Dr Cáneva has been involved in severe 

respiratory diseases, pulmonary vascular diseases and lung transplantation programmes. During 

2003 and 2004 Dr Cáneva has been involved in consultation for AstraZeneca Argentina about dry 

powder inhalers. Since 1993 to the present, Dr Cáneva has served as independent consultant on 

Long-Term Oxygen Therapy for Air Liquide Argentina. Furthermore, he serves as independent 

consultant about inhaled (nebulized) therapy for the treatment of pulmonary vascular diseases. Dr 

Cáneva does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS; he 

does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr Cáneva’s spouse has no 

relationship with any pharmaceutical company. Dr Cáneva has not yet travelled to any MTOC 

meeting since he has only recently been named as a member of the MTOC. 

Christer Carling Sweden (Non-A5) 

Christer Carling, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee, is, since about two years, 

retired from a position as Director Global Licensing at the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca. 

Mr Carling is at present an independent consultant in the pharmaceutical area. His ongoing 

consultancy activities do not involve services to any organization with an interest in the topics of 

the Montreal Protocol. Mr Carling has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, 

does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not 

have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase out ODS. His spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Mr Carling’s 

travel to MTOC meetings is paid entirely out of his own pocket. 

Mike Devoy Germany (Non-A5)

Dr. Mike Devoy, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2003, is a physician 

working in a pharmaceutical industry. Dr Devoy has wide experience in drug development 

including inhaled medicines. He works for Schering AG as head of Global Medical Affairs and 

Pharmacovigilance. His current employer has no interest commercially in the areas of respiratory 

medicine and metered dose inhalers. His employer sponsors travel expenses in relation to Dr. 

Devoy’s Montréal Protocol activities. Dr Devoy is a minor shareholder in a range of companies 

concluding GlaxoSmithKline. His wife is a physician working as a consultant anaesthologist, with 

no conflict of interest associated with the Montreal Protocol. 

Antoine Haddad Italy (Non-A5) 

Antoine Haddad, MTOC member since 2007, is a full time Area Manager Middle East at Chiesi 

Farmaceutici S.p.A. located in Parma, Italy. The company has interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol as a producer and licensor of MDIs and have proprietary interest in alternatives 

or substitutes to ODS. Mr Haddad does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 171

nominations, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Mr Haddad’s 

family members and parents have no direct or indirect interest in matters relative to the Protocol. 

He does not work as a consultant on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MTOC 

meetings is paid by Chiesi Farmaceutici S.p.A., which do not receive contributions for this travel. 

Mr Haddad has significant experience with more than 20 years of activity in the specific field, in 

licensing, technology and know-how transfer, for local production in many Middle East countries. 

Charles Hancock USA (Non-A5) 

Charles O. Hancock, is a private medical device sterilization consultant with Charles O. Hancock 

Associates, Inc. Mr Hancock has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because he is 

actively engaged in the safe and effective delivery of sterilization processes for medical devices in 

healthcare applications. Mr Hancock has proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, 

owns stock in a company producing alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in 

the outcome of essential use nominations, and does provide consulting for organizations seeking to 

phase out ODS. Mr Hancock’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Mr Hancock 

works frequently as a consultant to governments, companies, and healthcare institutions on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MTOC meetings is paid by Mr Hancock. 

Eamonn Hoxey UK (Non-A5) 

Dr. Eamonn Hoxey, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1996, is an 

Executive Director for Quality and Compliance for Johnson & Johnson. Dr Hoxey is a full time 

employee based in the UK. Johnson & Johnson has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol as a manufacturer of healthcare products, including sterile products, and utilize in-house 

and external sterilization facilities that do not employ ODS. Dr Hoxey is chairman of the European 

standards committee on sterilization of medical devices. Dr Hoxey has no stock in companies 

involved in ODS, with the possible exception of stock held in portfolio accounts where he has no 

control over purchase or sale. Dr Hoxey’s partner has no interest in matters before the Protocol. 

Johnson & Johnson makes in-kind contributions of wage and miscellaneous expenses. 

Javaid Khan Pakistan (A5) 

Prof. Javaid Khan, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1999, is a Professor 

and Head Section of Pulmonology and Critical Care Medicine at the Aga Khan University, Karachi 

Pakistan. UNEP funds Dr Khan’s travel expenses to attend the meetings of MTOC. No conflict of 

interest exists for himself or his spouse in relation to his MTOC work. Dr Khan has attended Chest 

Conferences, such as ATS, sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Dr Khan takes an active role 

in educating doctors and the public on asthma and COPD. Pharmaceutical companies have 

sponsored some of these meetings. Dr Khan has never received any honorarium from 

pharmaceutical companies for his lectures. He is also a member of the Global Initiative for 

Asthma (GINA) assembly and Head of the Tobacco Prevention Section of the International Union 

Against Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases. 

Nasser Mazhari Motlagh Iran (A5) 

Dr. Nasser Mazhari Motlagh, new member of the Medical Technical Option Committee, is a 

pharmacist at the Sina Darou Laboratories Company plc. Nasser Mazhari is a full time Quality 

Assurance Manager and Executive Deputy at the Sina Darou pharmaceutical and hygienic 

manufacturing plant, Tehran. Nasser Mazhari holds a doctorate in pharmacy and has about 40 

years experience in pharmaceutical industry (manufacturing), and the last decade in MDIs. The 

Sina Darou Laboratories Co. plc has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is 

manufacturing CFC MDIs and it is in the process to phase-out CFCs. Nasser Mazhari has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not owns stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of 

essential use nominations, and does consulting and working for Sina Darou to phase-out CFCs. 

Nasser Mazhari is a minor stock holder of Sina Darou Labs Co. plc. Nasser Mazhari's spouse has 

no interest in matters before the Protocol. Travel expenses to MTOC meetings are paid by UNEP’s 

Ozone Secretariat. 

Robert Meyer USA .(Non-A5) 

Dr. Robert J. Meyer, MD, a member of the Medical Technical Options Committee (MTOC), is a 

Director of an Office of Drug Evaluation at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Dr Meyer is a 

full time clinician/physician at the FDA's Headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA. The 

FDA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it regulates all drugs sold in the 

United States, including the asthma and COPD metered-dose inhalers containing CFCs. Dr Meyer 

has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have a financial interest in the 

outcome of essential use nominations, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODS. Dr. Meyer's spouse also has no financial or other interests in matters before the Protocol. 

Dr. Meyer works occasionally as a subject matter expert in consultation with other US government 
172 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

agencies involved in matters related to ozone protection on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol, but does not directly participate in the U.S. delegation to the Meetings of the Parties or 

the Open-Ended Working Group meetings. Dr Meyer's travel to the MTOC meeting is paid by 

U.S. FDA. 

Hideo Mori Japan (Non-A5) 

Hideo Mori, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1999, is a chemist 

employed at Otsuka Pharmaceutical, based in Tokushima Japan. He is engaged in strategic 

regulatory work and scientific documentation of new drugs including MDIs and DPIs. Mr Mori is 

the chair of the CFC Committee of the Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’ Association 

of Japan, which was organized to accomplish phase-out of CFCs in MDIs and smooth transition to 

the alternatives. The CFC Committee provides a grant for travel to attend MTOC and 

MOP/OEWG meetings. Otsuka Pharmaceutical provides other expenses for work relating to ozone 

layer protection. His spouse has no activity related to the matters before the Protocol. 

Tunde Otulana USA (Non-A5) 

Dr Tunde Otulana, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1995, is a Senior 

Vice President, Development at Aradigm Corporation. Dr Otulana is a full time executive at the 

Aradigm Corporation in Hayward, California. Aradigm has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because it operates in the general field of respiratory diseases. Dr Otulana has 

no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of 

essential use nomination, and does no consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr 

Otulana’s wife has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr Otulana’s travel to MTOC 

meetings is paid by Aradigm Corporation. 

Jose Pons Pons (co-chair) Venezuela (A5) 

Jose Pons, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel and the Medical Technical 

Options Committee and Member of the 2007 Task Force on the TEAP Legacy, is President of 

Spray Química C.A. Jose Pons is a full time manager/engineer at the Spray Química aerosol filling 

plant in La Victoria, Venezuela. Spray Química has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it used, and still uses, ODS in some of its aerosol products for industrial 

maintenance. Mr Pons has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an 

interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not consult for organizations seeking 

to phase out ODS. Mr Pons’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol; she is also a 

manager/engineer at Spray Química. Mr Pons has worked occasionally as a consultant to MLF on 

matters related to the Montreal Protocol. The Task Force worked by e-mail and there was no travel 

or other expenses paid by any organizations to participate in this activity. Travel related to 

participation in the TEAP and MTOC, and relevant Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone 

Secretariat. Spray Química makes in-kind contributions of wage, and miscellaneous and 

communication expenses. 

John Pritchard UK (Non-A5) 

Dr. John Pritchard, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since February 2006, is 

currently Strategic Technology Director for Pharmaceutical and Analytical R&D in AstraZeneca, 

having previously held a variety of roles within 3M, GlaxoSmithKline and AEA Technology 

(formerly UK Atomic Energy Authority). He has published extensively in the field of aerosol 

science and is a past President of The Aerosol Society, a past member of the UK Government 

Committee on the Medical Effects of Airborne Pollutants and has served as editor on a number of 

journals. Participation in MTOC is supported by AstraZeneca, which develop and supply 

medicinal products, including inhalable drugs in a range of dosage forms, some of which are 

MDIs. Mr Pritchard is also a minor shareholder in a range of companies, including 

GlaxoSmithKline. 

Raj Bright Singh India (A5) 

Dr Raj B Singh is a clinical respiratory physician engaged in private practice in Chennai, South 

India. Nearly 90 per cent of his work concerns clinical respiratory medicine, with out-patients at 

the Chest Centre and in-patient facilities at the Apollo Hospital, Chennai where he is a senior 

consultant. He is the founder of the Chest Foundation of India and its Managing Trustee. Dr 

Singh has been a member of the Executive Committee of the Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) 

since 2003 and a member of MTOC since 2005. UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat funds his travel 

expenses for participation on MTOC. 

Roland Stechert Switzerland (Non-A5) 

Dr. Roland Stechert, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2000, is a 

Medical Director for Boehringer Ingelheim in Switzerland. As an expert of respiratory research he 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 173

was involved in the development of CFC-free MDIs with Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Stechert 

headed the German regional International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC) Group until 

2002. Since he took over his recent role in 2003 in Switzerland Dr Stechert is no longer a member 

of IPAC. Participation costs are all borne by the affiliate in Switzerland. 

Helen Tope (co-chair) Australia (A5)

Helen Tope, Co-chair Medical Technical Options Committee since 1995, Member of the 2007 Task Force on the 

TEAP Legacy, is Principal Consultant of Energy International Australia (since 2006) and also Director of Planet 

Futures (since 2007) with whom she is an independent consultant providing strategic, policy and technical advice 

and facilitation services to government, industry and other non-governmental organisations on climate change, 

ozone-depleting substances, and other environmental issues. Dr Tope’s business has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because her potential clients are also interested in these topics. Dr Tope has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not currently 

consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODS. Dr Tope’s spouse has no interest in matters before the 

Protocol. The Ozone Secretariat provides a grant for travel, communication, and other expenses of the Medical 

Technical Options Committee from funds granted to the Secretariat unconditionally by the International 

Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium (IPAC). IPAC is a non-profit corporation. 

Adam Wanner USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Adam Wanner, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1995 has had a long-standing 

interest in aerosol therapy for obstructive lung disease, both as a researcher and clinician. On occasion, the 

American Lung Association has sponsored his travel to MTOC meetings. Dr Wanner has received academic 

grants (unrelated to the CFC phase-out) from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr Wanner and his spouse have 

no financial interests relevant to his work on MTOC. 

Kristine Whorlow Australia (Non-A5) 

Kristine Whorlow, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 2006, is the CEO of the National 

Asthma Council Australia. The National Asthma Council Australia has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it led the phase-out of CFC-containing inhalers for respiratory disease in partnership with the 

Australian Department of the Environment in Australia. Ms Whorlow has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does 

not have an interest in the outcome of essential use nominations, and does not consult for organizations seeking to 

phase out ODS. Ms Whorlow’s partner has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Ms Whorlow pays her own 

travel to MTOC meetings. 

Ashley Woodcock (co-chair) UK (Non-A5) 

Prof. Ashley Woodcock, Co-chair of the Medical Technical Options Committee and Member of the Technology 

and Economic Assessment Panel, is a Respiratory physician at the South Manchester University Teaching 

Hospital. Prof. Woodcock is a full time physician and academic at the North West Lung Centre Manchester 

United Kingdom. The Hospital and University have no direct interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Prof. 

Woodcock has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODS, does not have an interest in the outcome of essential use 

nominations. Prof. Woodcock carries out unrelated consulting and educational lectures for pharmaceutical 

companies, some of which have continued to produce CFC MDIs, and some of which have sought to accelerate 

phase out of CFC MDIs. He regularly advises companies on study design for new drugs, some of which have been 

ODS replacements. Prof. Woodcock’s spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. Prof. Woodcock does 

not work as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, and Implementing Agencies. In the past, he has responded to 

requests for technical information on CFC MDI phase-out from the European Community and the United 

Kingdom Government. Travel and subsistence for meetings of TEAP, MTOC, OEWG, MOP meetings is paid by 

the UK Department of Environment, and Prof. Woodcock’s employer allows leave of absence. 

You Yizhong China (A5) 

Dr. You Yizhong, member of the Medical Technical Options Committee since 1997, is a chief pharmacist and 

associate chief physician. Dr You has been devoted to promoting the wide use of inhalation therapy in China for 

35 years and to phasing out CFCs from aerosols for 15 years. Dr You developed some anti-asthmatic drugs 

including MDI, tablet, syrup and suppository. Dr You receives his salary from The First People’s Hospital of 

Changzhou and has no interest or economic relationship with pharmaceutical companies, and does not receive any 

fees for work associated with MTOC. UNEP's Ozone Secretariat funds his travel expenses to attend MTOC 

meetings. 
174 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

AIII.2 Disclosure of Interest Declarations CTOC 

D.D. Arora India (A5) 

Mr. DD Arora has been a member of the CTOC member since 2005 after having served as an ATOC member 

since mid 1990s, and is currently working as an independent consultant for (a) The Energy and Resources Institute 

in the field of energy, environment and global warming, (b) UNDP for preparation and implementation of Aerosols 

projects to phase out ODS usage and (c) INFRAS, Zurich for formulation of a CDM project in India under Kyoto 

protocol. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and he does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. None of his family members have interest in 

matters before the Protocol. His travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP only. 

Steven H. Bernhardt USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Steven H. Bernhardt has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. He is the Global Director Regulatory Affairs 

for Honeywell Specialty Products at their Morristown, New Jersey global headquarters. He has earned Bachelors, 

Masters and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Chemical Engineering. He was previously a Member of the UNEP 

Process Agents Task Force since 1997 and has participated in Meetings of the Parties since 1996. He owns stock in 

Honeywell who is a producer of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs and who has a process agent exemption. He is a Board 

Member of the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy and the International Climate Change Partnership. 

Travel expenses for TOC meetings are paid by Honeywell International. 

Olga Blinova Russian Fed. (Non-A5)

Olga Blinova has been a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as an ATOC member for a long 

time, and is currently working at Federal State Unitary Enterprise “Russian Scientific Center “Applied Chemistry” 

(RSC “Applied Chemistry”) as a full-time Main Research Fellow at its Fluorochemical Research Center. The RSC 

“Applied Chemistry” has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is engaged in ODS phaseout 

in Russian industrial sector. She is a chemist (Ph.D. in Chemistry, 1989), currently engaged in research in the field 

of fluorine chemistry. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and she does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. None of her family members have 

interest in matters before the Protocol. Dr. Blinova occasionally works as a consultant to Russian Government, 

implementing agencies or companies on matters related to the Montreal Protocol, mostly to ODS phaseout in 

Russian industrial sectors. Her travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP only. 

Nick Campbell France (Non-A5) 

Dr. Nick Campbell has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. Nick has spent 19 years working primarily on the 

ozone layer issue and climate change. He works for ARKEMA SA, based in Paris, as the Environment Manager 

for the Fluorinated Products Division. ARKEMA SA is a producer of CFCs, HCFCs and HFCs. ARKEMA SA 

supports his participation on CTOC. Nick has stock options in ARKEMA SA. He is Chairman of the European 

Fluorocarbon Technical Committee (EFCTC) that represents the producers of fluorocarbons in the European 

Union and the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) Working Party on Climate Change. He is also the 

Chairman of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Working Party on Climate Change and the Chairman 

of the UNICE Climate Change Working group, representing European Union Employers’ federations. Dr 

Campbell has been a member of the World Bank’s Ozone Operations Resource Group. He was a Chapter/ Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs (April 2005). Dr Campbell was 

awarded a 1997 United States EPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Award for his role in the phase-out of ODS. 

Bruno Costes France (Non-A5) 

Dr. Bruno Costes has been a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as a member of the SOC for 

more than ten years. He is a Director in Environmental Affairs at Airbus Company. The Airbus Company has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its intensive efforts for replacing ODS solvents used in 

producing various parts of airplanes to non-ODS alternatives. Dr. Costes has no proprietary interest alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by Airbus 

Company. 

Jianxin Hu China (A5) 

Prof. Jianxin Hu has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. He is Director of Environmental Process Division, 

College of Environmental Sciences in Peking University. He has spent 12 years working on the ozone layer issue 

and persistent organic pollutants. He is a member of the POPs Review Committee for the Stockholm Convention. 

He was one of Lead Authors for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). He was the team 

leader to draft many sector phase-out plans for ODS phase-out in China, the Strategy for the Long Term 

Management of HCFCs in China and to draft the National Implementation Plan for the Stockholm Convention on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants in China. As one of the key team member, he was awarded the 2004 “Special Gold 

Award of Ozone Layer Protection contribution Award of China” by the Chinese Government; and was awarded 

USEPA Stratospheric Ozone Protection Awards for Leadership in ODS Phaseout in Developing Countries in 2005. 

His travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP only. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 175

Biao Jiang China (A5) 

Dr. Biao Jiang, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee since 2005, is Professor of Chemistry of 

Shanghai Institute of Organic Chemistry, Chinese Academy of Sciences and a member of editorial advisory board 

of Chemical Communication, Royal Society of Chemistry, United Kingdom. Professor Jiang involves in the 

research and development of new methodology in organic synthesis, medicinal chemistry, fluorine chemistry as 

well as organic process and green chemistry. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

and he does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. None of his family 

members have interest in matters before the Protocol. Cost of travel, communication and other expenses related to 

participation in the TEAP, CTOC, and relevant Montreal protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP only. 

Asad A. Khan India (A5) 

Dr. A.A.Khan has been a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as a STOC member for more than 

ten years. He is a chemical engineer. He was at the Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, India and 

retired in 2001 as a full time Head, Chemical Engineering Division. He continued as an 'Emeritus Scientist' for 5 

years after retirement. The Indian Institute of Chemical Technology has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it is a constituent institution of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) and has 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Khan does not own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not have an interest in the outcome of EUN or CUNs, and does 

consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His spouse has no interest in matters before the Protocol. 

Dr. Khan works occasionally as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, 

companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by UNEP, which 

receives contributions for this travel from member organizations, if relevant. 

Michael Kishimba Tanzania (A5) 

Prof. M.A. Kishimba has been a member of the CTOC member since 2006. He is an Associate Professor of 

Chemistry at the University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM), Tanzania, where he teaches, researches and supervises 

under- and postgraduate students in environmental and organic chemistry. UDSM has an interest in the topics of 

the Montreal Protocol because as an esteemed tertiary educational and research institution in the region, it has to 

be in the forefront in the knowledge search, confirmation and dissemination of topical environmental issues, one 

of which is the Montreal Protocol. Prof. Kishimba has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult 

for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. However, he teaches the chemistry behind the Montreal Protocol to 

MSc students and leads a research group on environmental aspects of pesticides. Travel to CTOC meetings is paid 

by UNEP, which receives contributions for this travel from UN Member countries 

Abid Merchant USA (Non-A5) 

Mr. Abid Merchant has been a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as an STOC member since 

1997, and is currently working as an independent consultant for DuPont and UNDP to assist with solvent 

replacement projects to phase out ODS usage. Until 2001, Mr. Merchant worked for DuPont as a research and 

product development engineer to develop alternatives to ODS solvents. DuPont, previously produced CFCs, and 

currently produces and distributes HFCs and HCFCs. He is an inventor or co-inventor for many applications 

patents for HFC solvent alternatives for CFC-113 in solvent and process agent applications He does own DuPont 

stock. None of his family members have interest in matters before the Protocol. He was a Lead Author for the 

solvent section of the IPCC/TEAP Special Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). His travel to CTOC meetings 

is paid by DuPont.. 

Koichi Mizuno Japan (Non-A5) 

Dr. Koichi Mizuno, a member of the CTOC since 2005, is principal reviewer (Environment and Energy) at the 

AIST. He was a member of the Destruction Technology Sub Committee in 1991-1995, of the Task Force 

Destruction Technology in 2001-2003, and co-chair of the F-TOC Task Force on Foam End-of-Life Issue in 2004-

2005. He was also a Lead Author of IPCC-TEAP Special report on “Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global 

Climate System: Issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons (April 2005).” He invented two 

processes using inductively-coupled radio-frequency plasma and solid catalysis for destruction of fluorinated 

compounds such as CFCs, HCFCs, HFCs, and PFCs. He is a member of Science Advisory Board of the 

Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Dr. Mizuno has no proprietary interest alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. 

AIST pays wages, travelling and other expenses. 

Claudia Paratori Chile (A5) 

Ms. Claudia Paratori, Chemist, has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. She is an Environmental Consultant 

to UNEP and Governments on chemicals and POPs management. Ms. Claudia is a full time Coordinator of the 

Ozone Programme at the Department of Pollution Control in the National Commission for the Environment – 

CONAMA. This institution has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the National Focal 

Point. Ms. Claudia has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs substances, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for 

organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. She worked as a consultant to UNIDO on matters related to the 
176 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Montreal Protocol solvents in Venezuela. Travel to CTOC meetings have been paid only by UNEP, which 

receives contributions for this travel from the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol.

Hans Porre Netherlands (Non-A5) 

Dr. J.G.W. (Hans) Porre has been involved in the Process Agent Task Force activities since 1998. He has joined in 

the CTOC since 2005. He is an analytical/technical chemist and has been active since 1983 in chemical industry 

(lead industry, precious metal industry, organic polymer industry and laboratory and environmental management. 

He is expertised in CTC adsorption, emissions and destruction technology. He is a member of Eurochlor and the 

Society of the Dutch Chemical Industry. Dr. Porre is an Environmental Coordinator at the Teijin Twaron. He 

works a full time job at the Teijin Twaron site in Delfzijl, Netherlands. Teijin Twaron has an interest in the topics 

of the Montreal Protocol because in the plant of Delfzijl CTC is used as a process agent and Teijin Twaron wants 

to give a contribution to sustainable development in ODS uses by an active participation of Dr. Porre in the CTOC 

activities. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phase 

out ODSs. Travel to TOC meetings is paid by Teijin Twaron. 

Ian D. Rae Australia (Non-A5) 

Dr. Ian Rae, Co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee since 2005, is Honorary Professorial Fellow 

at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and a member of advisory bodies for several Australian government 

agencies, including on implementation issues for the Montreal Protocol and the Stockholm Convention. He also 

co-chaired the 2001 and 2004 Process Agent Task Forces. He and his spouse do not own stock in a company that 

distributes ODSs and ODS alternatives. He is a member of the POPs Review Committee for the Stockholm 

Convention. On occasions, he acts as consultant to government agencies and to universities and companies and he 

has been an expert witness in a case involving alleged patent infringement involving HFC-134a and its lubricants. 

He contributes the time for his own participation in TEAP activities. The Australian Government Department of 

the Environment and heritage finances the cost of travel and accommodation for Dr. Rae’s attendance at meetings 

of CTOC, TEAP OEWG and MOP. 

Shunichi Samejima Japan (Non-A5)

Mr. Shunichi Samejima has been a member of the CTOC since 2005, after having served as a member of the 

STOC from 1998. He is Head of Secretariat and Director of Commendation at the Asahi Glass Foundation. The 

Asahi Glass Foundation recognizes activities in global environmental problems including the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol and commends such by awarding the Blue Planet Prize, and also conducts other environmentrelated activities. Mr. Samejima has extensive research experience in organic fluorine chemistry and developed 

alternative to ODSs and had marketing experience in precision cleaning area while being employed by Asahi 

Glass Co., Ltd. which produces alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He is an inventor or co-inventor for many 

applications patents for solvent alternatives for CFC-113 in solvent and precision cleaning applications. He does 

own Asahi Glass stock. He does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His travel to TOC 

meetings is paid by Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. 

Fatima Al-Shatti Kuwait (A5) 

Dr. Fatima Al-Shatti has been a member of the CTOC since 2005. She has 21 years of experience in the area of 

environment, with a degree in environmental science, and PhD form Salford University in England 2003. She is a 

member of the Kuwait Society of environment, and Institute of Environment Management & Assessment. She 

worked for 10 years with Public Authority of Environment, as the manager of waste management. Dr. Al-Shatti 

involved in the incinerators work for a Kuwait hospital during working with KEPA. She used to represent Kuwait 

in Basel Convention, worked with British team as supervisor in removing contaminated soil with PCB, worked 

with all international, regional and national environmental policies, rules and regulations, to help solving the 

environmental problems in the country. She worked closely for more than 4 years with The US Army troops – 

especially how to handle their hazardous waste according to the Basel Convention and all other environmental 

issues. In 1996, she worked with Petrochemicals Industry as a plant environmental engineer, and established the 

environmental system as the first company in Kuwait with HSEMS. In 1999-2001, she worked for KEPA as a 

consultant for waste management. Dr. Al-Shatti worked with KEPA and United Nation team in the environmental 

strategy and also worked to review the Kuwait environmental regulations. From 1998 to 2004, she worked as a 

consultant for the KPC, with HSE committee, to develop an environmental policy and the HSE reporting system. 

Since 1st of July 2004 she works for KPC. She is a member of the ozone committee with KEPA. Travel to TOC 

meetings is paid by UNEP, which receives contributions for this travel from member organizations, if relevant. 

John R. Stemniski USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. John R Stemniski is a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served a STOC member since 1990. He 

was retired from MIT/Draper Laboratory where he was a Principal Member Technical Staff for 47 years. He 

maintains a part time position at MIT/Draper as Mentor to Junior Staff Members. As a consultant, Dr. Stemniski 

has interests in the topics of the Montreal protocol because of his continuing interest in searching for alternatives to 

ODS solvents for the US Navy, US Air Force and space craft applications. He has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs. He does have an interest in the outcome of EUN or CUN and does consulting for 

organizations seeking to phase out ODSs – AGC Chemicals, America Inc. His spouse has no interest in mattes 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 177

before the Protocol. Dr. Stemniski works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, MIT/Draper Laboratory, US 

Navy, US Air Force, US EPA and AGC Chemicals America, Inc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Travel to CTOC meetings is paid by AGC Chemicals America, Inc. Dr. Stemniski holds a BS in chemistry and a 

PhD in synthetic organic chemistry. 

Peter Verge USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Peter Verge is a member of the CTOC since 2005 after having served as a member of the STOC for more than 

10 years. He is a chemical engineer and works for the Boeing Company. The Boeing Company has an interest in 

the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its intensive efforts for replacing ODS solvents used in producing 

various parts of airplanes to non-ODS alternatives. Dr. Verge has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not 

consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to CTOC meetings is paid by the Boeing 

Company. 

Masaaki Yamabe Japan (Non-A5) 

Mr. Masaaki Yamabe, Co-Chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee since 2005, is research 

coordinator (Environment and Energy) at the AIST. He also co-chaired the 2004 Process Agent Task Force. He 

was a member of the Solvents TOC during 1990-1996. Until 1999, Mr. Yamabe was Director of Central Research 

for Asahi Glass Company, which previously produced CFCs, methyl chloroform, and carbon tetrachloride, and 

currently produces and distributes HCFC, carbon tetrachloride, and HFCs. He is the co-inventor of HCFC-225, 

which is controlled under the Montreal Protocol as a transitional substance in the phase-out of ozone-depleting 

substances and is a substitute for CFC-113 in solvent and process agent applications. He owns stock in Asahi Glass 

Company that produces ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes. Mr. Yamabe was a Coordinating Lead 

Author for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs (April, 2005). He also works for the Japan Industrial 

Conference for Ozone Layer and Climate Protection (JICOP) as a senior advisor. AIST pays wages, travelling and 

other expenses. 

Nee Sun Choong Kwet Yive Mauritius (A5) 

Dr Choong Kwet Yive, who has been a member of the CTOC since 2006, is senior lecturer of analytical / physical 

chemistry at the University of Mauritius. Dr. Choong Kwet Yive is currently doing research on inorganic (heavy 

metals) and organic pollutants (PAHs and pesticides) in the environment. Travel to CTOC meetings is paid by 

UNEP. 

AIII.3 Disclosure of Interest Declarations FTOC 

Kiyoshi Hara Japan (Non-A5) 

Kiyoshi Hara is working as a consultant in Japan Polyurethane Industries Institute. He has been a member of 

FTOC since 1999 and participated in the Task Force on Foam E-o-L issues as an expert in the polyurethane and 

phenolic Foam industries in Japan. He was a member of a national project “Investigation of CFC recovery from 

the construction” sponsored by METI. Previously, Mr. Hara was Secretary General of Japan Industrial Conference 

for Ozone Layer Protection (JICOP) from 1994 to 2002, seconded from Asahi Glass. He had 40 years experience 

in Fluorocarbon applications, 35 years in Chlorinated Solvent applications and 30 years in Polyurethane Foam 

technologies. He worked in Asahi Glass from 1961 to 2002. He received 1997 Stratospheric Ozone Layer 

Protection Award by US-EPA. His participation in FTOC activities is funded by the Japan Polyurethane Industries 

Institute. 

Michael S. Hayslett USA (Non-A5) 

Mike Hayslett is a Leader for material development for Whirlpool Corporation. He has been a member of 

Appliance Research Consortium (ARC) Insulation Technical Advisory Committee (ITAC) since 1995. He has 

worked in the appliance industry since 1994. His participation in FTOC activities is funded by the Appliance 

Research Consortium. 

Mike Jeffs Belgium (Non-A5) 

Mike Jeffs is the Secretary General of ISOPA, the European Diisocyanates and Polyols Association. He has been 

in this role since 2002 and is seconded from Huntsman. The members of ISOPA are Bayer, Dow, Elastogran 

(BASF), Huntsman, Lyondell, Repsol and Shell. He has been employed by ICI and Huntsman for more than 39 

years and has been involved in the polyurethane industry since 1975. ISOPA funds his current work in support of 

the Montreal Protocol. He has been e member of the Foams TOC since 1990 and lead author on rigid foams since 

1993. He has been a contributor to both the TEAP Special Report on the Implications to the Montreal Protocol of 

the Inclusion of HFCs and PFCs in the Kyoto Protocol (1999) and the IPCC/TEAP Report on Safeguarding the 

ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (2005). He 

was a member of The World Bank Ozone Operations Resource Group (OORG) where he covered all foam issues 

relating to the World Bank’s activities for the Multilateral Fund from its setting up in 1992 to the OORG’s 

disbandment in 2006. This included responsibilities for project review. His current role includes engagement with 

EU institutions on chemicals issues including the regulations on fluorinated gases. 
178 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Candido Souza Lomba Neto Brazil (A5) 

Candido Souza Lomba Neto, Foam TOC Member since 1997, is an Economist working at the trade association 

ABRIPUR as Executive Secretary. His responsibilities include legal issues, financial issues, marketing issues, 

technical support to the industry for Environmental Programs, Quality Assurance Programs, Export Programs, 

Participation in National and International Exhibitions and any other activity to improve the business of ABRIPUR 

members. Relating to Montreal Protocol his most relevant activities have been as collaborator in the Brazilian 

Ozone Layer Programme (1993-94) and in-country consulting for various Implementing Agencies under the 

Montreal Protocol (1994 to present). His work has assisted more than 200 companies to phase-out CFCs as 

blowing agents for foam processes. Candido’s time for participation in FTOC activities is funded by ABRIPUR, 

whilst his travel costs and other expenses are supported through the Ozone Secretariat. 

Yehia Lotfy Egypt (A5) 

Yehia Lotfy has been a member of the Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee (TOC) since 1990. 

 He is the managing director and owner of Technocom for Commercial Agencies, a consulting and trading 

company covering the needs of the different industries and sectors where polyurethanes, solvents, blowing agents 

and refrigerants are used (materials, equipments and know how). He previously worked for ICI from 1980 to 2000 

in charge of the technical services for polyurethane products; solvents, refrigerants and related equipment in

different sectors (appliances, constructions, transport, furniture, automotive, foot wear, coating,...etc). From 1989 

to 2002, he worked as the local consultant for UNDP and UNIDO to assist the Egyptian government and the local 

enterprises to implement the Montreal Protocol Projects for the (ODS) phasing out in the Foam and Refrigeration 

sectors. Mr. Yehia Lotfy has been involved over the last 27 years in the consultation and the start up of many 

projects in the different Polyurethane applications in Egypt and other Arab countries. His time commitment to 

FTOC activities is covered by Technocom, whilst his travel costs and other expenses are supported through the 

Ozone Secretariat. 

Kirsten Makel USA (Non-A5) 

Kirsten Makel, a member of the Foam Technical Options Committee since 2006, is the Global Business Director 

responsible for the Foams, Solvents and Aerosols market sector at Arkema Inc. Makel joined Arkema (formerly 

ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc.) in 1990 and has been involved in the Fluorochemicals business for the past 11 years. 

Promoted to Business Director in 2006, Makel is responsible for the strategic leadership and financial results of the 

global business. This position establishes and implements the short-term and long-term strategic business plans, 

which includes all R&D programs and understanding the implications of global environmental regulations. As 

HCFC blowing agents are being phased out under the Montreal Protocol, she has been intimately involved with the 

commercialization of next generation foam technologies for the PUR, PIR and XPS industries. In her previous 

roles as Business Manager North America (2004-2006) and Global New Business Development Manager (2001-

2004), Makel lead the Fluorochemical division’s global efforts to develop and commercialize next generation foam 

technologies to replace HCFCs. Her participation in the FTOC is funded by Arkema Inc. 

Christoph Meurer Germany (Non-A5) 

Christoph Meurer joined Solvay in 1996 and held several positions in the field of technical service for HFCs in 

their various applications. In 2005 he became Technical Service Manager for all HFC applications (blowing 

agents, refrigerants, feedstock, aerosols). In this function he works with the foam industry in the development and 

optimisation of foam formulations based on non-ODS substitutes. As of 1st of April 2007 Christoph has taken over 

new responsibilities as Global Technical Marketing Manager for blowing agents, feedstock and solvents. . 

Christoph joined the Foams TOC in 2005. His participation in FTOC activities is fully funded by Solvay. 

Mudumbai Saragapani India (A5) 

Mr Sarangapani is the Secretary General of the Polyurethane Council of India and has served as a member of the 

Foams Technical Options Committee since its inception. Travel costs and other related expenses incurred while 

participating in FTOC activities are covered by the Ozone Secretariat. 

Ulrich Schmidt Germany (Non-A5) 

Ulrich Schmidt joined Haltermann in 1986 as R&D Manager for hydrocarbons. Since the early 1990’s he was 

involved in the implementation of pentanes as blowing agents for PU foams as a CFC replacement. His activities 

were initially concentrated in Europe but have since been extended to cover overseas areas as well. Following the 

purchase of Haltermann by The Dow Chemical Company in 2002, Ulrich has maintained this function. Ulrich has 

been a member of the Foams TOC since 2001 and his continued involvement is funded in full by The Dow 

Chemical Company. 

Bert Veenendaal USA (Non-A5) 

Bert Veenendaal is specialized in environmental compliance, environmental remediation and sustainable industrial 

process technologies. He has 35 years experience in the handling of chemicals in a sustainable way in a true 

international setting. Since January 1992 he has worked as an independent consultant through his own company, 

Rappa, Inc, primarily as a contractor to UNDP on projects supported under the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal 

Protocol. Some of his activities include engineering assistance, industry-wide emission studies, technical 

assessments, project and process assistance for more than 300 projects in about 30 countries worldwide, 

workshops and demonstration programs for foams and in refrigeration, design, preparation and implementation of 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 179

study missions, chemical safety training for foam and appliance manufacturers, air permit acquisitions in the USA 

for PU foam manufacturers, petitions and other submissions to the USEPA. Before, Mr. Veenendaal had 

managing positions in the PU foam industry in the USA and Germany. He has been a member of the UNEP 

Foams Technical Options Committee since 1989. Rappa Inc funds Mr. Veenendaal’s participation in the FTOC. 

Shigeru Wakana Japan (Non-A5) 

Shigeru Wakana is a technical committee member of Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association in Japan, and also 

has 23 years technical experience in extruded polystyrene foam business with Dow Kakoh K.K. He is now 

R&D/TS&D Leader for Dow Kakoh. K.K. He has been a member of Foams TOC since 2004 and was a member 

of a project “Investigation of CFC recovery from the construction” sponsored by METI. His participation in 

FTOC activities is full funded by The Dow Chemical Company. 

Mark Weick USA (Non-A5) 

Mark Weick has 25 years technical experience in plastic foams business and technology with The Dow Chemical 

Company. He has served in a variety of research, technical service, management, and business leadership roles 

with Dow dealing with styrenic, ethylenic, and urethane foam products. He currently serves as the Environment, 

Health and Safety Global Product Stewardship Leader for Dow’s Building Solutions business unit. He has been a 

member of the UNEP Rigid and Flexible Foams Technical Options Committee since 2003, and assumed Lead 

Author responsibilities for the polystyrene foams sector in 2006. Mark’s participation in FTOC related activities is 

funded by The Dow Chemical Company. 

David J. Williams USA (Non-A5) 

Mr. David J. Williams has been a member of the Foams Technical Options Committee since 1996. Since 1994, 

Mr. Williams has worked at Honeywell’s Buffalo Research Laboratory in Buffalo New York in the fluorocarbon 

blowing agent technology group and since 1998 has been the manager of this group. In this role, Mr. Williams is 

responsible for the development and technical support of Honeywell’s fluorocarbon blowing agents used in the 

production of rigid polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and phenolic foams and in extruded thermoplastic foams. 

Prior to this, Mr. Williams worked for 20 years for The Dow Chemical Company/The Upjohn Company in various 

roles related to the development and technical support for polyurethane, polyisocyanurate, and extruded 

polystyrene foams or foam systems. He owns stock in companies that now or previously manufactured ozonedepleting substances and products made with or containing ozone-depleting substances and their substitutes and 

alternatives. Participation of Mr. Williams in FTOC related activities is funded by Honeywell. 

Jinhuang Wu USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Jinhuang Wu has been a member of the Foams Technical Options Committee since 2000. He was also a lead 

author of the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report: Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues 

related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons.” From 1997 to 2005, Jinhuang worked for Arkema Inc. 

(formerly known as ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. and Elf Atochem N.A.), where he was responsible for application 

development of blowing agents in rigid insulating foams including polyurethane and extruded polystyrene. He is 

currently an employee of Huntsman. His current responsibilities include research and development of polyurethane 

based technologies. He owns stocks in companies that produce chemicals for foam and refrigerant applications. 

Jinhuang Wu’s continued participation in FTOC activities is funded by the Huntsman Corporation. 

Qiang Xu China (A5) 

Mr. Xu is currently R&D Director for Shanghai Haohai Chemical Corporation,Ltd. He has worked in the Chinese 

polyurethanes industry for over 20 years and is a member of the China Polyurethane Industry Association. He 

joined the FTOC in 2005 and his travel costs and associated expenses are covered by the Ozone Secretariat. 

Allen Zhang China (A5) 

Allen Zhang has 10 years technical and management experience in extruded polystyrene foam technology and 

business with Owen Corning. He has served in a variety of production technical, operation management, and 

business leadership roles with Owens Corning dealing with XPS and fibreglass insulations operations. He 

currently serves as insulation manufacturing leader to be accountable for five plants operations for Owens Corning 

Asia Pacific. He has been a member of ISO/TC61 since 2002 and lead author of China national XPS product 

standard. He is very familiar with China foam industry. He has been a member of the UNEP Rigid and Flexible 

Foams Technical Options Committee since 2005. His participation is directly funded by Owens Corning with 

travel and other expenses eligible for cover by the Ozone Secretariat. 

AIII.4 Disclosure of Interest Declarations HTOC 

Ahmad AL-Khatib Jordan (A5) 

Mr. Ahmad AL-Khatib, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, works as a technical consultant 

for the Ministry Of Environment / Ozone Unit of ODSs Phase out Project / JORDAN and has no conflicts of 

interest, does not consult for any other organisation, and does not have his own trade or firm. Mr. Ahmad ALKhatib is committed as a member of the HTOC not to disclose any information to any organization in either a 
180 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

direct or indirect way. Mr. Ahmad AL-Khatib’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone 

Secretariat. 

Geok Kwang Boo Singapore (A5) 

Mr. Geok Kwang Boo, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the Director of Fire Safety & 

Shelter Department (FSSD) of the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF). He is a full time Engineering 

Profession Officer at the Headquarters of the SCDF, which is located at 91 Ubi Avenue 4, Singapore 408827. The 

FSSD is the regulatory arm of the SCDF, administering and enforcing fire safety regulations in all buildings in the 

Republic of Singapore; that includes the regulating of fixed fire protection systems and portable fire extinguishers 

using halons. Mr. Geok Kwang Boo has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, owns no 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not provide consultation to 

companies seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Geok Kwang Boo has no person related to him, being his spouse, 

children or social partner, who works for or consults for any organization that has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol. Mr. Geok Kwang Boo’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Fareed I. Bushehri UNEP (Bahrain) (A5) 

Fareed I. Bushehri, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is employed by the United Nations 

Environment Programme. Mr. Bushehri is a full time Programme Officer at the Regional Office for West 

Asia. The United Nations Environment Programme has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it 

is one of the implementing agencies under the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Bushehri has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Bushehri works full time as an 

employee of UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Bushehri’s spouse and dependant children 

living at same home have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to 

phase-out ODSs. Mr. Bushehri’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by the United Nations Environment 

Programme. 

David V. Catchpole UK (Non-A5) 

Mr. David V. Catchpole, Co-Chair of the Halons Technical Options Committee and Member of the Technology 

and Economics Assessment Panel since 2005, works part time for Petrotechnical Resources Alaska (PRA), an 

Anchorage, Alaska based company that provides consulting services to oil companies in Alaska. From 1991 to 

2004 he was a member of the HTOC. From 1970 until 1999, he was an employee of the BP group of companies, 

most recently BP Exploration Alaska, where he worked for nine years in the environmental department on 

alternatives to halon and on halon banking. Mr. Catchpole advises BP Exploration Alaska on fire protection and 

halon issues as his main activity for PRA. BP Exploration Alaska has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it uses halon 1301 for explosion prevention and fire suppression in its enclosed oil and gas 

processing modules on the North Slope of Alaska. Mr. Catchpole has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

however his retirement portfolio contains stock in BP plc. Mr. Catchpole’s spouse does not work for or consult for 

any organization that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. His spouse has no proprietary interest 

in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Catchpole typically 

receives funding to support salary and travel to TEAP/TOC meetings from the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency and the United States Department of Defense; and the Halon Recycling Corporation and the 

Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, which are not-for-profit industry coalitions that in turn receive 

contributions for this funding from members. Contributors are: BP Exploration Alaska, ConocoPhillips Alaska, 

DuPont, Chemtura, American Pacific, Firetrace, Halon Banking Systems, Wesco and Remtec. 

Seunghwan (Charles) Choi Rep. Of Korea (A5) 

Mr. Charles (Seunghwan) Choi, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is a CEO and 

Representative Director at the Hanju Chemical Co. (“Hanju”). Mr. Choi has a full time management job at Hanju 

in 326-79 Songjeong-ri, Whasung city, Kyunggi-do, Korea. The Hanju has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it produces halon 1301 and halon 1211 products in accordance with the Montreal Protocol. Mr. 

Choi owns stock in companies producing ODS but does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out 

ODSs. Mr. Choi does not work as a consultant on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Choi’s spouse and 

dependant children living at same home do not work for or consult for any organization that has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Choi’s spouse and dependant children have no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Choi’s travel to HTOC meetings is 

paid for by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Michelle M. Collins USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Michelle M. Collins, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the President of EECO 

International and a former full-time research engineer for the United States National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (from 1990-2005). Dr. Collins is a full time consultant at the offices of EECO International, 3600 

Travis Place, Titusville, Florida, 32780, U.S.A. Dr. Collins continues to report to NASA on the HTOC through 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 181

EECO International in an unofficial capacity. The company has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol 

because of NASA’s needs. Dr. Collins has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not perform consulting 

for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Collins may work occasionally as a consultant to NASA (U.S. 

government) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Collins’ spouse works for NASA in an unrelated 

field, and Dr. Collins’ dependant children living at same home do not work for or consult for any organization 

which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Collins’ spouse and their children have no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Collins’ 

travel to HTOC meetings is paid by EECO International, which may receive contributions for this travel from 

NASA, if relevant. 

Andrew Greig South Africa (A5) 

Mr. Andrew Greig, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is a Principal Engineer at Protection 

Projects, a consulting fire engineering company located in Johannesburg, South Africa. He is in full time 

employment with Protection Projects. Mr. Greig is also a joint manager of the Halon Bank of Southern Africa, 

which organisation is operated on behalf of the South African Government’s Department of Environmental 

Affairs. The Halon Bank of SA is a non-profit organisation, established in terms of the Montreal Protocol and 

Amendments; to manage the reduction of existing stocks of halon, facilitate the disposal of halons, assist in 

locating halons to keep critical systems running, and to provide quality assurance services relating to these 

objectives. The Halon Bank thus has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol in order to carry out the 

obligations of the South African Government as a Signatory. Services are rendered on behalf of the Bank on an asrequired basis by two joint managers, for industry-standard time-related fees. Mr. Greig has no proprietary interest 

in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own shares in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, and does occasional consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Greig’s 

spouse and dependant children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock 

in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to 

phase-out ODSs. Mr. Greig’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid by Protection Projects, which receives contributions 

for this travel from the UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Matsuo Ishiyama Japan (Non-A5) 

Mr. Matsuo Ishiyama, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member since 1996, is Corporate Advisor of 

Nohmi Bosai Ltd., a leading Japanese fire protection company, manufacturing, sales and contracting for 

installation of fire detection-alarm systems and all kinds of fire extinguishing systems. He has been appointed as 

Advisor of the Japan Fire Extinguishing Systems Manufacturer’s Association, and Board Auditor of the Fire and 

Environment Protection Network (National Halon Bank of Japan). Nohmi Bosai Ltd. provides his ordinary salary 

and the Fire and Environment Protection Network pays for travel expenses for attending HTOC meetings. 

Zhou Kaixuan China (A5)

Mr. Zhou Kaixuan, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member since 2006, is the Deputy Director 

General of Aircraft Airworthiness Certification of General Administration of Civil Aviation of China. Mr. Zhon 

has been in the Civil Aviation area for more than 20 years. He participated in Rule-making for most of the Civil 

Aviation Regulations of China and Type Certifications on Civil Aircraft of China such as 

Y12/Y7/MA60/Y8/LE500/Z9/Z11. Mr. Zhou previously worked for Macau Civil Aviation Authority of Macau for 

3 years (from 1995 to 1998). He has been the Deputy Director of Standard Division, Director of Aircraft 

Supervision Division and Director of Liaison Division in Aircraft Airworthiness Department of General 

Administration of Civil Aviation of China (CAAC) for many years. In 2000, he was appointed as the Deputy 

Director General of Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Department of CAAC. Mr. Zhou has no interest or 

economic relationship with halon production companies or any aviation industry company, and does not receive 

any fees for work associated with HTOC. Mr. Zhou’s travel expenses to attend HTOC meeting are paid for the 

UNEP's Ozone Secretariat. 

H. S. Kaprwan India (A5) 

Mr. H. S. Kaprwan, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, retired as Add. Director from the 

Defense Institute of Fire Research, Ministry of Defense, Government of India, in July 2004. Since then he has been 

a free lancer fire protection consultant in India associated with various government and semi-government 

organizations. He has been assisting them with information sharing on various fire protection technologies 

including halon alternatives and technology transfers under financial and technical assistance of the MLF of the 

Montreal Protocol. Mr. Kaprwan is not employed by any government or private company in India or abroad on the 

subject of fire protection technologies or halon replacement technologies. Mr. Kaprwan also provides free and 

voluntary advice to various Indian government and private organizations on fire protection related subjects, 

including the Ministry of Environment Ozone Cell, Indian Military organizations, and the aviation sector. Mr. 

Kaprwan is not employed by and does not receive any financial assistance of any kind from commercial 

companies in India or abroad where he would have any conflict of interest of any kind regarding halon or halon 

alternative related matters. Mr. Kaprwan’s spouse and sons are not involved in subjects related to the Montreal 

Protocol. Mr. Kaprwan’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by the UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 
182 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Nikolai Kopylov Russian Fed. (Non-A5) 

Dr. Nikolay Kopylov is the Head of the All-Russian Scientific Research Institute for Fire Protection (VNIIPO). 

VNIIPO has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as a body responsible for technical control of 

Montreal Protocol related issues in Russia. VNIIPO has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does 

not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Kopylov works as a consultant to the Russian 

government on matters related to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Kopylov's spouse and son have 

no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own or own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. 

Kopylov's travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Barbara Kucnerowicz-Polak Poland (Non-A5) 

Dr. Barbara Kucnerowicz-Polak, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the Senior Adviser to 

the Head of the Polish Fire Service and Civil Protection at the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service. Dr. 

Kucnerowicz-Polak is responsible for international co-operation on chemical safety, including implementation of 

the European Union directives and OECD recommendations regarding chemical safety programs, as well as the 

Montreal Protocol related issues. Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak has extensive experience in combustion science and fire 

protection research and was head of the Extinguishing media department under the National Certification 

Authority for almost 15 years. Since 1994 when she became a member of the HTOC, Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak has 

served as the national expert on problems related to halon phase-out for the Polish Government and fire protection 

community. She developed Poland's national strategy for phasing out halons, including a set of guidelines for the 

fire protection community that provide step by step technical approaches to implementing the Montreal Protocol 

decisions. Over the last ten years she has also served as a member of the Ozone Operation Resource Group, 

consulting to the World Bank for the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. The National Headquarters of the 

State Fire Service has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own or own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak's sons do not work for 

or consult for any organization or companies and have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, do not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not 

consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Kucnerowicz-Polak travel to HTOC meetings is paid for 

by the National Headquarters of the State Fire Service and she does not receive contributions for this travel from 

any other sources. 

David Liddy UK (Non-A5) 

Dr. David Liddy, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is an employee of the UK government. 

Dr. Liddy has a Ph.D. in chemistry and works full time on environmental policy issues for the UK Ministry of 

Defence (UK MOD) in London. The UK MOD has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it 

continues to use some ODSs in equipment and facilities. Dr. Liddy has no proprietary interest in any alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not consult for any other organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. Liddy’s travel to HTOC meetings is 

paid for by UK MOD. 

Bella Maranion USA (Non-A5) 

Ms. Bella Maranion, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is a Program Analyst at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Ms. Maranion is a full time industry sector analyst and project 

manager in the USEPA's Stratospheric Protection Division, Washington, DC. The USEPA has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because the Agency is responsible for implementing national regulations and 

policies to meet the US commitments under the Protocol. Ms. Maranion has no proprietary interest in alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs or in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not consult 

for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Ms. Maranion's spouse and dependant children have no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs 

and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Ms. Maranion’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid 

for by the USEPA. 

John J. O’Sullivan UK (Non-A5) 

Mr. John J. O’Sullivan, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member since 1992, has worked as a full 

time aviation fire protection expert for British Airways and adviser to the International Air Transport Association 

(IATA) for 40 years. Mr. O’Sullivan recently took early retirement from British Airways and is now employed by 

Bureau Veriitas, one of the leading environmental companies in the world, as their Fire Consultant and is still 

acting as adviser to IATA. Acknowledged as one of the leading fire protection specialists in the world, in 1998 Mr. 

O’Sullivan was, on the recommendation of Tony Blair, Prime Minister UK, awarded the MBE by Her Majesty 

Queen Elizabeth II for services to Aviation and the Environment. In 1996 he was awarded the United States 

Environment Award for his role in the phase out of ODS and 1994 awarded the Ben Franklin Medal for work with 

Fire Services. Mr. O’Sullivan has no financial interest in any company or organisation that benefits from him 

being a member of the HTOC. Mr. O’Sullivan’s spouse does not work for any company and is now retired. Mr. 

O’Sullivan’s two children are not involved with any company that would benefit from his membership of HTOC. 

His attendance at meetings has been funded by his employer or paid for out of his personal funds. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 183

Erik Pedersen Denmark (Non-A5) 

Mr. Erik Pedersen, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is a consultant to the World Bank for 

the Implementation of the Montreal Protocol. The World Bank has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol as one of the four implementing agencies under the Multilateral Fund of the Montreal Protocol, and 

working with developing countries for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Pedersen has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Erik 

Pedersen works as a consultant to The World Bank on matters related to the implementation of the Montreal 

Protocol. Mr. Pedersen's spouse does not work for or consult for any organization or company. Mr. Pedersen’s 

children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies 

producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out 

ODSs. Mr. Pedersen’s travel to HTOC meetings is partly paid by the World Bank and from his own funds. He 

does not receive contributions for this travel from other sources. 

Donald Thomson Canada (Non-A5) 

Mr. Donald Thomson, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the Past Chairperson of the 

Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry Association (MOPIA) board of directors and the Chairperson of their Halon 

Section. MOPIA is a partnership between industry, the public and government committed to successfully 

protecting the stratospheric ozone layer through the control, reduction and eventual elimination of emissions of 

ozone depleting and climate changing substances to the atmosphere. MOPIA, a non-exclusionary association, is 

the primary conduit for liaison between the various ozone depleting substances industry associations, Manitoba 

Environment and any other interested stakeholders. Mr. Thomson has a full time position as the Fire Marshal for 

Manitoba Hydro responsible for their fire prevention and protection programs. Manitoba Hydro is a public utility 

having an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of their use of halon as a fire suppressant and the 

use of other ODS in AC/Chillers systems. In addition Mr. Thomson is looking to the future for the elimination and 

disposal of halons for the stakeholders of Manitoba. Mr. Thomson has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not do any consulting for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Thomson has worked as a consultant 

to UNEP through the Canadian Government on matters related to halon management for the Montreal 

Protocol. Mr. Thomson's social partner works for or consults for Manitoba Hydro and is also a Past Chairperson of 

MOPIA, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol for the same reason as Mr. Thomson. Mr. 

Thomson's social partner has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not do consulting for organizations 

seeking to phase-out ODSs. Travel to HTOC meetings is paid in part by MOPIA and wages are maintained by 

Manitoba Hydro. 

Daniel P. Verdonik USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Daniel P. Verdonik, Co-Chair, Halons Technical Options Committee and Member, Technology and Economic 

Assessment Panel is the Director, Environmental Programs, Hughes Associates, Inc. Dr. Verdonik is a full time, 

salaried employee at Hughes Associates, Inc., in Baltimore, MD and Arlington, VA providing consulting services 

in fire protection and environmental management. Hughes Associates, Inc. has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because it provides a wide range of fire protection research, design and consulting services to 

government and corporate clients, including work related to halons and halon alternatives. Dr. Verdonik has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and through Hughes Associates, Inc. provides consulting services for 

organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Verdonik is a partner in Hughes Associates, Inc., which does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS, or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Verdonik currently provides 

consulting services through Hughes Associates, Inc, for the U.S. Army and U.S. Navy on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol and has previously provided services through Hughes Associates Inc. for Implementing 

Agencies, U.S. EPA, U.S. Air Force and Chemtura. Dr. Verdonik’s spouse works for the U.S. Army, which has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is trying to phase-out halons but in the interim, continues 

to rely on halons for purposes of national security. Dr. Verdonik’s spouse and dependant child have no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Hughes Associates, Inc. 

typically receives funding to support Dr. Verdonik’s salary and travel to TEAP/HTOC/TSB meetings from MLF, 

UNEP, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. EPA, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

the Halon Recycling Corporation, and the Halon Alternatives Research Corporation, who in-turn currently receives 

funding to support these efforts from the following sponsors: BP Exploration, Alaska, ConocoPhillips, Alaska; 

DuPont; Chemtura; American Pacific; Firetrace; Halon Banking Systems; Wesco; Remtec. From time-to-time, 

Hughes Associates, Inc may also provide support for labour and travel. 

Robert T. Wickham USA (Non-A5) 

Mr. Robert T. Wickham, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Member, is the principal of Wickham 

Associates, a consulting engineering firm located in Stratham, New Hampshire, U.S.A. Mr. Wickham is an 

engineering graduate of the University of Wisconsin and is a registered professional engineer in several states. Mr. 

Wickham has had and continues to have a long term interest in assuring that only environmentally sound and safe 

alternatives to halons are employed, views that are consistent with the interests of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. 
184 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Wickham has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes for ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes for ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out 

ODSs. While Mr. Wickham has at times performed consulting services for the World Bank and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency in the area of alternatives to halons, he currently has no assignments of this type 

nor is seeking any. In addition to his work on the HTOC, Mr. Wickham has been a member of the U.S. delegation 

to the International Maritime Organization’s Fire Protection Sub-committee for the past 12 years, the head of the 

U.S. delegation to ISO TC 21/SC 8, the Chair of the NFPA Aerosol Extinguishing Technology committee, a 

member of the NFPA technical committee on Gaseous Fire Extinguishing Systems, a Board Member of the 

International Water Mist Association and a Lead Author for the IPCC/TEAP joint Report on HFCs and PFCs 

(April, 2005). Further, Mr. Wickham is one of only two people to earn both the U.S. EPA Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection Award (1999) and the U.S. EPA Climate Protection Award (2002) for his work in the field of halon 

replacements. Mr. Wickham’s spouse and children have no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Mr. 

Wickham’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by Wickham Associates from general company funds. 

Consulting Experts 

Thomas Cortina USA (Non-A5) 

Mr. Thomas Cortina, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is a partner at Alcalde & 

Fay Inc., 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA, USA. Mr. Cortina serves as Executive Director of the Halon 

Alternatives Research Corporation (HARC) and the Halon Recycling Corporation (HRC). HARC and HRC have 

an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because they are non-profit associations focused on issues related 

to halon recycling and replacement. Mr. Cortina has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs but may do consulting for 

organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Cortina’s spouse and children living in the same household have no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Mr. Cortina works occasionally as a consultant on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol. Travel to HTOC meetings is paid by HARC. 

Sergey Kopylov Russian Fed. (Non-A5) 

Dr. Sergey Kopylov is the Head of the Department of Fire Extinguishing tools & media of the All-Russian 

Scientific Research Institute for Fire Protection (VNIIPO). VNIIPO has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol as a body responsible for technical control of Montreal Protocol related issues in Russia. VNIIPO has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own or own stock in companies producing ODS 

or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Kopylov works as a technical expert to the Russian government on 

matters related to the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Kopylov's spouse does not work for or consult 

for any organization or company. Dr. Kopylov's spouse and children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, do not own or own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs 

and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Kopylov's travel to HTOC meetings is paid 

for by UNEP’s Ozone Secretariat. 

Steve McCormick USA (Non-A5) 

Mr. Steve McCormick, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert since 1996, is a 

survivability team leader at the US Army Tank-Automotive Command. He is a full time researcher at the TankAutomotive Research, Development and Engineering Center (TARDEC) in Warren, MI. TARDEC has an interest 

in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the vehicles it supports rely on halons and their replacements for fire 

protection. For more than 20 years, Mr. McCormick has developed fire protection systems to protect soldiers and 

their equipment and has led Army efforts to replace halons in ground vehicles. Mr. McCormick has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. McCormick’s spouse 

and child do not work for or consult for any organization that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol. They have no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. Mr. McCormick’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by TARDEC. 

Jawad Rida Jordan (A5) 

Mr. Jawad Rida, Halon Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is the Managing Director at the 

National Concorde Establishment. Mr. Rida is a full time Director at the Head Office in Jordan. The National 

Concorde Establishment has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it provided technical support 

to Jordan’s National Halon Management Project. Mr. Rida has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not 

consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Rida works occasionally as a consultant to the United 

Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Rida’s spouse and 

dependant children living at the same home have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do 

not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for 

organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Mr. Rida’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by UNEP’s Ozone 

Secretariat. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 185

Mark L. Robin USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Mark L. Robin, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is a Senior Technical 

Consultant at DuPont Fluoroproducts in Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A. Dr. Robin has over 20 years experience in 

the synthesis and applications of specialty organofluorine compounds, including HCFCs and HFCs in propellant 

foam blowing, solvent, refrigeration and fire suppression applications. DuPont Fluoroproducts has an interest in 

the topics of the Montreal Protocol because they are a major manufacturer of ODSs and substitutes to ODSs. Dr. 

Robin has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, but he owns stock in companies producing 

ODS, alternatives and substitutes to ODSs (DuPont). Dr. Robin does not serve as a consultant for organizations 

seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Robin’s spouse and dependant children living at same home do not work for or 

consult for any organizations that have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Robin's spouse and 

dependant children have no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not consult for organizations seeking to 

phase-out ODSs. Dr. Robin’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid by DuPont Fluoroproducts. 

Joseph A. Senecal USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Joseph A. Senecal, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is employed full-time as 

the manager of the Combustion Research Center of Kidde-Fenwal Inc., Holliston, Massachusetts, USA, a United 

Technologies Corporation (UTC) company. United Technologies has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it is a supplier of fire extinguishing and refrigeration products that formerly employed ozone 

depleting substances. Dr. Senecal has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, except as may be held by mutual funds 

in which he owns shares, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Senecal does not 

act as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related 

to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Senecal’s spouse has no connection with any organization that has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol, does not have a proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Senecal’s travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by his employer, UTC. 

Ronald S. Sheinson USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Ronald S. Sheinson, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert, is a research chemist 

(Head, Combustion Dynamics) at the US Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). Dr. Sheinson is a full time employee 

at the NRL, located in Washington, DC, USA. The Navy has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol 

because of its need for fire protection, and its commitment supporting the minimization of employing ozone 

depleting substances. Dr. Sheinson has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase-out ODSs, outside of efforts consistent with Navy efforts. Any such information exchange is of a 

technical nature and not for remuneration. Dr. Sheinson's spouse and dependant child living at same home do not 

work for or consult for any entity that has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. They have no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Dr. Sheinson’s 

travel to HTOC meetings is paid for by NRL. 

Ronald Sibley USA (Non-A5) 

Mr. Ronald Sibley, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert since 1994, is currently a 

contract consultant to the US Department of Defense ODS Reserve Program Office in Richmond, Virginia. Mr. 

Sibley retired in January 2007 from US Government employment where he served for the most recent fifteen years 

as the US Government Program Manager for the US Department of Defense Military Inventory for halon/CFCs. 

The US Department of Defense has interest in all aspects of the Montreal Protocol given its global operations with 

bases in many different nations. Additionally, the US military has led in the development and implementation of 

many halon reclaiming and storage procedures and techniques which have been adopted worldwide. Mr. Sibley 

continues to receive funding for travel and HTOC participation from the US military. Mr. Sibley and his spouse 

have no financial interest relevant to alternatives or substitutes and do not consult for organizations seeking to 

phase out halon/ODSs. 

Mitsuru Yagi Japan (Non-A5) 

Mr. Mitsuru Yagi, Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) Consulting Expert since 2006, is a mechanical 

engineer working for a leading Japanese fire protection equipment manufacturer, Nohmi Bosai Ltd., based in 

Tokyo. He has been engaged in designing fire fighting equipment using water, foam, dry chemical and gas for 20 

years. He is also a manager of the Japanese national Halon Bank (Fire and Environment Protection Network), 

which was organized to contribute to protect the ozone layer and to prevent global warming by controlling all 

kinds of gaseous fire extinguishing agents, including halons, restraining unnecessary emission of agents and 

promoting reclamation of agents that can be recycled. The Network provides the expenses for travel to attend 

HTOC meetings and other expenses for work relating to ozone layer protection and global warming prevention. 

Nohmi Bosai provides his ordinary salary. 
186 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

AIII.5 Disclosure of Interest Declarations RTOC 

R.S. Agarwal India (A5) 

Dr. Radhey S. Agarwal, Co-chair of the Refrigeration, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options 

Committee, is the Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi). 

He co-chaired the 2003 HCFC Task Force and the 2004 Chiller Task Force. IIT Delhi has an interest in the topics 

of the Montreal Protocol being one of the academic institutes of higher learning in India. Dr. Agarwal holds a M. 

Tech. and a Ph.D. from IIT Delhi. Dr. Agarwal has been actively pursuing research in the area of refrigeration & 

air-conditioning. He has guided a number of Ph.D. and M. Tech. theses and published research papers in the field 

of refrigeration and air-conditioning. Dr. Agarwal has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own any stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives/substitutes to ODSs. Dr. Agarwal’s 

spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Dr. Agarwal occasionally takes consultancies and 

advisory roles operated through IIT Delhi from the engineering industry, UNEP, GTZ, INFRAS for research & 

development, technical advice, developing technical manuals and training materials etc. IIT Delhi makes in-kind 

contribution for wages. Cost of travel and other expenses related to participation in TEAP and the RTOC are paid 

by the Ozone Secretariat. 

James A. Baker USA (Non-A5) 

James A. Baker, member of the RTOC, is a full-time senior staff research scientist at Delphi Corporation’s 

Lockport Technical Center in Lockport, NY (USA). Delphi has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol 

because Delphi makes air conditioning systems for vehicles to provide passenger comfort. James A. Baker has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not provide consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. 

Neither James, nor his wife, Marianne A. Baker, have any material interest in matters related to the Protocol 

beyond philosophical support of its goals and objectives. James works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, 

MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

James A. Baker holds a B.A. in Chemistry (1970) and an M.S. in Physical Chemistry (1975) from Wright State 

University, Dayton, Ohio. James has been employed by Delphi (formerly as GM) for 33 years as a materials 

engineer and refrigerant systems expert. James was awarded the 1990 and 1997 US EPA Stratospheric Ozone 

Protection Awards for his contribution to pioneering the technology to recycle refrigerant. 

Julius Banks USA (Non-A5) 

Julius Banks, member of the RTOC, is the team lead on refrigerant recycling and emissions reduction at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Julius Banks is a full time environmental engineer at the Washington, 

DC Headquarters office of USEPA. The USEPA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because as a 

signatory to the Protocol the U.S. government has an interest in making certain that assistance is provided to 

parties to the Protocol, specifically A5 signatories. Julius Banks has no proprietary interest in alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

does not provide consulting services to organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Julius Bank’s 

spouse/partner/significant other has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Julius Banks works as regulation 

writer at USEPA and occasionally consults on issues related to UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, 

governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Dariusz J. Butrymowicz Poland (Non-A5) 

Dr. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz, member of the RTOC, is an expert at the National Refrigeration Forum, Poland. 

Dariusz J. Butrymowicz is a full time associate professor at the Institute of Fluid-Flow Machinery of Polish 

Academy of Sciences in Gdansk, Poland as well as a full time associate professor at the Bialystok Technical 

University in Bialystok, Poland. The National Refrigeration Forum, Poland has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because the activity of this organisation deals with usage and consumption of ODSs for 

refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump applications in Poland. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz has no proprietary 

interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for the National Refrigeration Forum, Poland seeking to phase out ODSs. 

Dariusz J. Butrymowicz’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Dariusz J. Butrymowicz works 

occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, and the National Refrigeration Forum, Poland on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol. 

James M. Calm USA (Non-A5) 

James M. Calm, member of the RTOC and CLA for Refrigerants in prior assessments, is an independent 

engineering consultant. Mr. Calm specialises in heating, air-conditioning, and refrigerating systems. His services 

include performance, environmental, and safety analyses as well as feasibility studies, assessments, research, and 

strategic planning. His clients frequently have included manufacturers (including but not limited to those 

producing refrigerants, equipment utilising them, components for them, and ancillary safety devices such as leak 

detection devices), engineering and architectural firms, building owners, and research organisations and 

occasionally have included utilities, trade associations (including those directly involved in refrigerant and related 

equipment manufacture), and governmental agencies. Mr. Calm also has consulted for clients regarding ODS 

alternative selections for processes other than refrigeration, such as for devices for medical and cosmetic 

treatments. The clients are primarily the United States, but sometimes also in Canada, Asia, Europe, and the 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 187

Middle East; the majority are in non-Article 5 countries, but some are in Article 5 countries. The topics of the 

Montreal Protocol and RTOC assessment are germane to aspects of Mr. Calm’s work addressing refrigerant 

management, transition planning, performance analyses, and evaluation of environmental and safety impacts. Mr. 

Calm has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own a proprietary interest or stock in companies engaged 

in processes for ODSs, alternatives, or substitutes. 

Guangmin Chen China (A5) 

Prof. Guangming Chen, member of the RTOC, is a professor at Zhejiang University, China. Guangming Chen is a 

full time professor at the Institute of Refrigeration and Cryogenics of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. The 

University has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because there are some professors and students 

who are doing the researches related to the alternatives to ODS refrigerants. Guangming Chen has no proprietary 

interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own any stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not consult for any organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Guangming Chen’s wife 

has no interest in matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Guangming Chen works occasionally as a consultant to 

UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Denis Clodic France (Non-A5) 

Dr. Denis Clodic, member of the RTOC, is a Research Director at the Ecole des Mines de Paris. Denis Clodic is a 

full time research director and deputy-director at the Center for Energy and Processes of Ecole des Mines de Paris 

in Paris. Denis Clodic manages a laboratory of 65 persons among them 36 Ph.D. students. The laboratory is 

deeply involved in improvement of energy efficiency of refrigerating systems, air conditioning, and industrial 

processes as well as high efficiency in buildings. Moreover he has developed with his team efficient methods of 

measurements of leak flow rates of refrigerating systems. The Ecole des Mines de Paris has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its research policy on substitution of refrigerants. Denis Clodic has no 

proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Denis Clodic 

works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, governments, companies, etc. on 

matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Daniel Colbourne UK (Non-A5) 

Daniel Colbourne, member of the RTOC, is an independent consultant, belonging to no organisation. Daniel 

Colbourne is a full time consultant at his home-based office in Stratford-upon-Avon, UK. Daniel Colbourne 

consultant has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of his personal experience within the 

related subjects, and a personal concern over the balance of outputs from the RTOC, and is funded by the UK 

Government for attendance at meetings. Daniel Colbourne has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does 

consulting for organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Daniel Colbourne’s partner has no interest in matters 

related to the Protocol, except for those related to environmental issues in general. Daniel Colbourne works 

occasionally as a consultant to GTZ (Germany) and DEFRA (UK) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol, and 

otherwise is involved with various private companies in technical adaptation of their refrigeration systems to use 

various alternative refrigerants. No further details thought important. 

James G Crawford USA (Non-A5) 

James G Crawford [Jim], member of the RTOC, is the Director of Regulatory Affairs of The Trane Company, a 

division of American Standard Inc. Mr. Crawford is a full time employee at the Trane Company’s facility in 

Tyler, Texas. The Trane Company has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because Trane is a 

leading manufacturer of heating and air conditioning equipment. Mr. Crawford has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs, and does not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. Crawford’s spouse has no 

interest in matters related to the Protocol. Mr. Crawford works occasionally as an unpaid advisor to UN agencies 

and US government agencies on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. Crawford holds a Bachelor’s degree 

in Physics from Temple University [Summa cum Laude with Distinction in Physics] and a Master’s degree in 

System Science from Polytechnic Institute of New York, and is a graduate of General Electric’s three-year postgraduate Advanced Engineering Program. He has been involved in various aspects of environmental systems and 

environmental studies for over 45 years, and has been an NGO participant in the Montreal Protocol, the 

Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol since 1993. 

Sukumar Devotta India (A5) 

Dr. Sukumar Devotta, member of the RTOC, is the Director at the National Environmental Engineering Research 

Institute (NEERI). Dr. Devotta is a full time Director at the NEERI, Nagpur, India. NEERI has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because of NEERI’s mandate to provide service in the area of environmental 

engineering and science. Dr. Devotta, holds a M. Tech. (1973) Ph.D. (1978) in chemical engineering from the 

University of Madras and M.Sc. (1984) from the University of Salford, UK in heat energy recycling. Dr. Devotta 

also has research interest in the broad areas of refrigeration, A/c and heat pumps and has been working for the last 

25 years or so. Dr. Devotta has published many research papers in peer reviewed journals and international 

conferences. He has also guided many post-graduate and Ph.D. students in this area. Dr. Devotta has no 
188 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. S. Devotta’s 

spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Dr. Devotta has not worked as a consultant to any 

organisation on matters related to the Montreal Protocol for the last four years or so. 

Kenneth Hickman USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Kenneth Hickman is a part-time consultant at Johnson Controls Building Efficiency Group in York Pa, USA, 

formerly York International Corp. He retired as Vice President of Engineering at York and continues as a 

consultant to the Advanced Technology Engineering Department. JCI-York has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because the company manufactures a wide range of HVACR products that are sold world-wide. 

These products in many cases use refrigerants that are regulated by the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Hickman has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS 

(except perhaps as part of diversified mutual funds). He does not consult for organisations other than JCI-York. Dr. 

Hickman’s spouse has no interest in matters relating to the Protocol. 

Takuho Hirahara (temporary) Japan (Non-A5) 

Mr. Takuho Hirahara, applying member of the RTOC, is Managing Director at Living Environment System 

Laboratory of Mitsubishi Electric Corporation. He is a full time manager at the office of Living Environment 

System Laboratory located at Kamakura-city in Japan. He graduated Physical Mechanical Engineering of Tokyo 

Institute of Technology and got Master Degree of Engineering at Purdue University. He has over 30 years 

experience of technical and quality issues related to hermetic compressors and refrigeration cycles. He has 

no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. 

Martien Janssen Netherlands (Non-A5) 

Martien Janssen, member of the RTOC, is a full-time director of Re/genT b.v., located in Helmond, The 

Netherlands. Re/genT BV has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it works on R&D topics 

related to Refrigeration, AC and Heat Pump systems, which may involve substitutes and alternatives to substances 

regulated by the Montreal Protocol. Martien Janssen has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and occasionally 

consults for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Martien Janssen’s spouse has no interest in matters related 

to the Protocol. Martien Janssen works occasionally as a consultant to Implementing Agencies on matters related 

to the Montreal Protocol. 

Maikoto Kaibara Japan (Non-A5) 

Mr. Makoto Kaibara, member of the RTOC, is a Research & Technology Manager of Refrigeration, Air 

Conditioning & Heating Business Group of Matsushita Home Appliances Company of Matsushita Electric 

Industrial Co., Ltd. He participated as a member of RTOC for 2002 Report and 2006 Report since 1999. He also 

participated as a review editor to the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global 

Climate System:Issues Related to Hydrofluorocarbons and Perfluorocarbons”. He is a full time engineer at the 

office of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning & Heating Business Group of Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd 

located in Shiga Japan. He graduated Mechanical Engineering of Osaka University in Japan, and he has over 30 

years experience of technical issues related to air-conditioning and refrigeration. He is Managing Director of 

JASRAE Japan Society of Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers and chairs the Technical Planning 

Committee. He also chaired the Residential Air Conditioner Technical committee in JRAIA the Japan 

Refrigeration and Air conditioning Industry Association. He has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. 

Ftouh Kallel Tunisia (A5) 

Dr. Ftouh Kallel, member of the RTOC, is a president at the SOFRIFAC SA company. Dr. Ftouh Kallel is a full 

time manager at the head office as well as at the factory located at Radès / Ben Arous City. The company has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because actually our process is using HCFC 141 b as a blowing 

agent when making air conditioning injected polyurethane ducts. Dr. Ftouh Kallel has proprietary interest 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, owns stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, ensuring consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs (such as ANPE-TUNISIA, Public 

Environment Agency). Dr. Ftouh Kallel works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol. 

Michael Kauffeld Germany (Non-A5) 

Prof. Dr. Michael Kauffeld, member of the RTOC, is a professor at the Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences. 

Michael Kauffeld is a full time professor at the Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Environmental 

Engineering. The Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol 

because of environmental awareness. Michael Kauffeld has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting 

for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Michael Kauffeld’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the 

Protocol. Michael Kauffeld works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP, Governments, companies, etc. on 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 189

matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Michael Kauffeld’s work time is funded by the Karlsruhe University of 

Applied Sciences, travel costs related to participation in the RTOC are funded by the German Ministry for the 

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. 

Fred J. Keller USA (Non-A5) 

Fred J. Keller, member of the RTOC, is the Vice President Engineering for Carrier Corporation’s Residential and 

Light Commercial Systems business unit. Fred holds a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from 

Purdue University and is a Licensed Professional Engineer. Fred has 37 years design experience in air 

conditioning and refrigeration systems. He is a full time Executive at Carrier’s Residential Light Commercial 

Systems engineering center located in Indianapolis, Indiana USA. Carrier Corporation has an interest in the topics 

of the Montreal Protocol because their products utilise ODS substances as refrigerants. Fred J. Keller has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does no consulting for organisations seeking to phase-out ODSs. Fred’s 

spouse, Laura L. Hintz-Keller, has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. 

Juergen Koehler Germany (Non-A5) 

Juergen Koehler, member of the RTOC, is a full professor at the Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany. 

Juergen Koehler has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. Juergen Koehler’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Juergen Koehler has about 20 

years of work experience in the mobile air conditioning and refrigeration industry. He has investigated 

theoretically and experimentally alternative refrigerants and refrigeration processes (compression and absorption). 

Since 1998 he has been a professor in the field of thermal sciences with special research interests in sustainable 

residential and mobile a/c and heat pump systems. 

Holger König Germany (Non-A5) 

Holger König, member of the RTOC, is a CTO at the Jaeggi/Guentner (Switzerland) AG, and a full-time technical 

director at the department in Trimbach, Switzerland. The Jaeggi/Guentner AG has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because the company is manufacturing products as components for environmentally friendly or 

natural refrigerants and technologies. Holger König has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not 

consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Holger König’s partner has no interest in matters related to 

the Protocol. Holger König occasionally works as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. He has received his diploma in engineering at the University of Hannover, Germany, in 1990, worked 

for different companies in research and development areas as well as for technical applications. He ha s published 

more than 20 technical papers dealing with the phase-out possibilities of ODS substances as well as new 

technologies to reduce energy consumption of refrigeration equipment. Since 1994 Holger König is spokesman of 

the German Research Council for Refrigeration. 

Lambert Kuijpers Netherlands (Non-A5) 

Lambert Kuijpers, Co-chair of the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel since 1992 and Co-chair of the 

Refrigeration, Air-conditioning and Heat Pumps Technical Options Committee since 1989, works on a part-time 

basis for the Department “Technology for Sustainable Development” at the Technical University Eindhoven, The 

Netherlands. He is a member of the Task Force on the TEAP legacy; he co-chaired the Replenishment Task 

Forces between 1996 and 2005. He served on the Steering Committee to the “IPCC/TEAP Special Report 

“Safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to Hydrofluorocarbons and 

Perfluorocarbons”, he co-chaired the 2005 Task Force for the TEAP Supplementary Report to the IPCC/TEAP 

Special Report and the 2006 Task Force on Emissions Discrepancies. He was a member of the Science 

Assessment Panel in 2005-2006. Until 1993, he worked for Philips in the development of refrigeration, air 

conditioning, and heat pump systems to use alternatives to ozone-depleting substances. He is financially supported 

(through the UNEP Ozone Secretariat) by the European Commission (and in certain years by some EU member 

state governments) for his activities related to the TEAP and the Refrigeration TOC. The general lack of adequate 

funding and also the high variability of available funding per year imply that, in many recent years, Dr. Kuijpers 

had to add significant voluntary contributions from private funds. Dr. Kuijpers has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODS. He occasionally is a consultant to governmental and non-governmental organisations, such as 

the World Bank, UNEP DTIE and the Multilateral Fund (e.g. for the 2006 Expert Meeting). Dr. Kuijpers is also 

an advisor to the Re/genT Company, Netherlands, which he co-founded in 1993 and where he still has a minority 

interest (R&D of components and equipment for refrigeration, air-conditioning and heating). 

Ed McInerney USA (Non-A5) 

Edward J. McInerney, member of the RTOC, retired January 1, 2007 from his position as the Chief Engineer for 

GE Consumer & Industrial Business (GE C&I). Chief Engineer, GE C&I is a full time engineering management 

position in the GE C&I Business, Technology Division, Office of Chief Engineer, a global business with 

headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, U.S.A. GE C&I includes GE’s Home Appliance, Lighting and Industrial 

businesses. The Industrial business segment includes the motors, appliance controls, electrical switchgear, 

electrical distribution and controls businesses. GE C&I has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol 
190 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

because it manufactures and/or markets products which contained and/or used in their manufacture ODSs at the 

time the Montreal Protocol was defined and ratified; for example, domestic refrigerators, room air conditioners and 

electronic board assemblies. Mr. McInerney has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does 

not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for 

organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. McInerney’s spouse is a housewife who does not work outside the 

home and has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. In the future, Mr. McInerney plans to work 

occasionally as a consultant to government and non-government organisations on matters, which could include 

those related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr. McInerney received his BS and MS in chemical engineering and has 

more than 42 years experience as an engineering technical contributor and engineering manager on broad topics, 

including those directly related to the application and use of ODSs. 

Petter Nekså Norway (Non-A5) 

Petter Nekså, member of the RTOC, is a Senior Research Scientist at SINTEF Energy Research (Energiforskning). 

Petter Nekså is a full time researcher at the department of Energy Processes, with offices located in Trondheim, 

Norway. Nekså holds an PhD and is the Group Manager of a group concentrating on refrigeration technology. 

SINTEF Energy Research has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because SINTEF does contract 

research within the field of refrigeration, partly with special emphasis to alternatives to fluorocarbon refrigerants. 

Petter Nekså is co-inventor to some patents, thus has proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for 

organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Petter Nekså’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. 

Petter Nekså works frequently as a consultant to companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Hezekiah B. Okeyo Kenya (A5) 

Hezekiah B. Okeyo, Assistant Director of Industries, is a full time employee of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, 

Government of the Republic of Kenya. His offices are located on the 22nd floor of Telposta Towers along Kenyatta 

Avenue in the City of Nairobi. Mr Okeyo has a Bachelor of Science Degree in Chemistry from the University of 

Nairobi, Kenya (1989) and Masters of Environmental Science and Technology from UNESCO-IHE Delft, The 

Netherlands. At the Ministry of Trade and Industry, where he has works since 1990 he is responsible undertaking 

environmental audits, analysis, assessment, monitoring and evaluation of environmental impacts of industrial 

production technologies and systems. He also gives recommendations for policy formulation; and advisory 

services to industries to enable them establish programs and strategies for pollution prevention, energy 

conservation and efficiency, and waste minimization through clean production technologies. He has been a 

member of The Ministry of Trade and Industry has an interest in the Montreal Protocol because of its mandate of 

promoting commerce, trade, industry and investment. The ozone depleting substances are used in the industrial and 

commercial sectors as refrigerants, fire extinguishers, foam blowing agents, aerosol propellants, and solvents. 

Mr Okeyo has been a member of the Kenya National Sub-Committee on ODS (NACODs) co-ordinated by the 

National Ozone Unit/Kenya Ozone Office for ten years and has served in the RTOC since 1996. He has no 

proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing or 

consuming ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He does not consult for organisations seeking to phase-out 

ODSs. He has undertaken the following consultancies for the Multilateral Fund of the Protocol for the phase-out of 

ODS in Kenya. 

Andy Pearson UK (Non-A5) 

Dr Andy Pearson, member of the RTOC, is a director of Star Refrigeration Ltd. Dr Pearson is a full time 

Managing Director at the head office of Star Refrigeration in Glasgow, UK. Star Refrigeration has an interest in 

the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it provides design and construction services to the industrial 

refrigeration market in the United Kingdom. Dr Pearson has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not 

consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Pearson’s wife has no interest in matters related to the 

Protocol. Dr Pearson is chairman of the Technical Committee of the Institute of Refrigeration and is a member of 

the board of directors of the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration. 

Per H. Pedersen Denmark (Non-A5) 

Per Henrik Pedersen, member of the RTOC, is a senior consultant at the Danish Technological Institute (DTI). Per 

Henrik Pedersen is a full time project manager at the DTI in Taastrup outside Copenhagen. The DTI has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is helping governments and industry to phase out ODS. 

Per Henrik Pedersen has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to 

phase out ODSs. Per Henrik Pedersen works frequently as a consultant to Governments and companies on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto Brazil (A5) 

Prof. Dr. Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto, member of the RTOC, is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the 

Instituto Maua de Tecnologia – IMT (Maua Institute of Technology). Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto is a full time 

professor at the IMT campus in Sao Caetano do Sul, SP, Brazil. The IMT has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because it has undergraduate and graduate courses and research activities on refrigeration and 

air conditioning technologies, thermal sciences and energy and environment areas. Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto has 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 191

no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Roberto’s 

spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Roberto de Aguiar Peixoto works occasionally as a 

consultant to UNEP, and UNDP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Roberto A. Peixoto received a 

Bachelor of Science and a Master of Science in Naval Engineering from the University of Sao Paulo and a Ph.D. in 

Mechanical Engineering and Thermal Sciences from the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. He is presently Professor 

of Mechanical Engineering at Maua Technological Institute (SP- Brazil), where he is teaching and co-ordinating 

studies and research in energy and environment area, and consultant to international institutions. 

Frédérique Sauer France (Non-A5) 

Frédérique Sauer, member of the RTOC, is a Marketing and Communication Manager at the Balas Group. 

Frédérique Sauer is a full time responsible for Marketing and Communication at the BALAS office in St-Ouen 

(Paris area). The Balas Group has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it installs and 

services Refrigeration systems, Heat Pumps and AC systems. Frédérique Sauer has no proprietary interest 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs, does not do consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Frédérique Sauer’s relatives have 

no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Frédérique Sauer works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP and 

AFCE (Alliance Froid Climatisation Environnement) on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Adam M. Sebbit Uganda (A5) 

Dr. Adam M Sebbit, member of the RTOC, is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, 

Makerere University. Dr. Adam M Sebbit is a full time lecturer at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, at 

the main campus, Kampala, Uganda. The Makerere University has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it trains students and carry our research in refrigeration and air conditioning, which use 

chemical that has effect on ozone layer. Dr. Sebbit has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, 

does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for 

organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Sebbit’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. She 

works as an account clerk in Kibuli Secondary School in Kampala. 

Jongmin Shin Rep. of Korea (A5) 

Dr. Jongmin Shin, a member of the RTOC, is a Vice President at the Digital Appliance Company of LG 

Electronics. Dr. Jongmin Shin is a full time Refrigeration R&D manager at the Refrigerator Group, DAC 

Laboratory, LG Electronics, 391-2, Changwon, Kyoungnam, Korea. The Digital Appliance Company of LG 

Electronics has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it produces refrigerators, air-conditioners, 

and compressors, which use refrigerants. Dr. Jongmin Shin has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting 

for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. Jongmin Shin’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the 

Protocol. Dr. Jongmin Shin works occasionally as a consultant to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

Arnon Simakulthorn Thailand (A5) 

Mr. Arnon Simakulthorn, member of the RTOC, is an Executive Chairman at Thai Compressor Manufacturing 

Co., Ltd (THACOM). Mr. Arnon Simakulthorn is a full time Executive Chairman at factory No. 33/3 Moo 21, 

Chachoengsao, 24000 Thailand. THACOM Ltd has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because 

THACOM cares for the environment and expects to have green environment products for its new generation. Mr. 

Arnon Simakulthorn has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to 

phase out ODSs. Mr. Simakulthorn' s partner has no interest in matters that are related to the Protocol. Mr. Arnon 

Simakulthorn occasionally works as a consultant to Government on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Aryadi Suwono Indonesia (A5) 

Aryadi Suwono, DSc. Ir., is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the Bandung Institute of Technology. Prof. 

Aryadi Suwono is a full time professor and Head of Energy Conversion Division at the Faculty of Industrial 

Technology at the Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia. The Bandung Institute of Technology 

has interest in the topic of Montreal Protocol because was asked to assist the Indonesian Government via the State 

Ministry of Environment after ratification of the Protocol. Prof Aryadi Suwono has no proprietary interest on 

alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs, however does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Prof. Aryadi Suwono works 

occasionally as consultant to UNEP, Implementing Agencies and Governments and companies on matters related 

to the Montreal Protocol. 

Peter Tomlein Slovakia (Non-A5) 

Peter Tomlein, member of the RTOC, is a secretary of Association for RAC, SZ CHKT, university teacher and 

member of committee for substitution of ODPs substances in Slovakia and responsible for certification of persons 

competent to break in to cooling circuits. SZ CHKT has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because 

it is responsible for implementing of the substitutions of ODP and GWP substances. Peter Tomlein has no 

proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 
192 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Peter Tomlein’s 

spouse/partner has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Peter Tomlein works occasionally as a consultant 

for Implementing Agencies, governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Vassily N. Tselikov Russian Fed. (Non-A5) 

Vassily N. Tselikov, a member of the Refrigeration, Air-conditioning, and Heat Pumps Technical Options 

Committee (RTOC) since 1997, is General Director of the Investment Centre of ODS Consumption and 

Production Phase-out Projects (ICP “Ozone”). ICP “Ozone” is a non-profit organisation. At present time he is a 

short-term consultant to the World Bank and Gazprom Export Company. In 1995 – 2004 he acted as a Project 

Manager for the projects “Russian Federation. GEF ODS Consumption Phase-out Project” # TF 028314-RU and 

“Russian Federation. Special Initiative for ODS Production Closure” # TF 020131-RU. As a Project 

Implementation Unit (PIU) for the above mentioned World Bank’s projects in the Russian Federation, ICP 

“Ozone” has dealt with the topics of the Montreal Protocol and in this capacity provided preparation of national 

plans, analytical and national reports in the field of ozone layer protection and environmental safety as delegated 

by the Ministry of Natural Resources of the Russian Federation (MNR of Russia). Vassily has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs. He is frequently engaged as consultant to MNR of Russia, the Russian Space Agency and its 

entities on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Also he provides consulting support for Russian companies 

seeking to phase-out ODSs in metered dose inhalers production. His spouse/partner/significant other has no 

interest in matters related to the Protocol. Vassily N. Tselikov is a Laureate of the Prize of the Government of the 

Russian Federation in the field of science and technology (2002) and holds the title “Honorary specialist on nature 

protection of Russia” (2005). He has more than 30 publications and 1 certificate of invention in the field of 

environment protection. From 1998 to 1999 he was President of the Bureau of the Vienna Convention and 

President of the Bureau of the Montreal Protocol. From 1999 to 2000 he was a Deputy Chairman of the InterAgency Commission for the Ozone Layer Protection (Russian Federation). Since April 2004 he is a full member 

of the International Academy of Refrigeration. 

Pham Van Tho Viet Nam (A5) 

Dr. Pham Van Tho, member of the RTOC, is a Deputy General of Department of Science and Technology at the 

Ministry of Fisheries, Vietnam. Tho is a full time official at the Ministry of Fisheries at Hanoi, Vietnam. The 

Ministry of Fisheries has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because there have been more than 400 

exported seafood processing factories which use many technical equipments producing ODSs, therefore the 

Ministry of Fisheries have the demand to upgrade knowledge and experience on how to avoid the bad impact of 

ODSs on environment. Tho has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does consulting for organisations seeking to 

phase out ODSs. Tho's spouse/partner has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Tho works frequently as a 

consultant to UN, UNEP, Implementing Agencies, Governments and companies on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

Paulo Vodianitskaia Brazil (A5) 

Paulo Vodianitskaia is the EHS Advisor for Whirlpool S.A. Paulo Vodianitskaia is a full time executive at the 

office located in Joinville, Brazil. Whirlpool S.A. has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because is 

a leading appliance manufacturer. Paulo Vodianitskaia has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not do 

consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Paulo Vodianitskaia’s spouse has no interest in matters 

related to the Protocol. Paulo Vodianitskaia does not work as a consultant on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. 

William F. Walter USA (Non-A5) 

William F. Walter, member of the RTOC, is the Manager, Industry Relations at Carrier Corporation. William F. 

Walter is a full time manager with Carrier’s Government and International Relations office in Syracuse, NY, USA. 

Carrier Corporation has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it manufacturers heating, 

ventilation and air conditioning equipment. William F. Walter has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does 

not consult for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. William F. Walter’s spouse has no interest in matters 

related to the Protocol. William F. Walter has a B.S. and M.S. in Chemistry from the State University of New 

York and an MBA from Syracuse University. He has worked for Carrier Corporation since 1980. 

Jianjun Zhang China (A5) 

Jianjun Zhang, member of the RTOC, is a vice chief engineer at the Zhejiang Lantian Environmental Protection 

Hi-tech. Co., Ltd. Jianjun Zhang is a full time manager of R&D department at Zhejiang Lantian Environmental 

Protection Hi-tech. Co., Ltd, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China. Zhejiang Lantian Environmental Protection Hi-tech. 

Co., Ltd has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the company is a main manufacture of ODS 

alternatives in China. Jianjun Zhang has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not consulting for organisations 

seeking to phase out ODSs. Jianjun Zhang’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. Jianjun 

Zhang works occasionally as a consultant to MLF and Chinese governments on matters related to the Montreal 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 193

Protocol. Jianjun Zhang has engaged on research and development of ODS alternatives for more than seventeen 

years. Jianjun Zhang received a master degree in 1991 and is now a professorial engineer in Chemical 

engineering. Jianjun Zhang had also experience studying and working in Hokkaido University, Japan and the 

Technology University of Delft, The Netherlands. 

Attila Zoltan Hungary (Non-A5) 

Mr. Attila Zoltan, member of the RTOC, is a Secretary General of the Hungarian Refrigeration and Airconditioning Association (HRACA) since more than two years. Mr. Attila Zoltan is now a full time Secretary 

General at the HRACA Central Office, Budapest, Hungary, earlier he has been the President of the HRACA for 9 

years. The HRACA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because as the unique trade organisation 

in Hungary for refrigeration, air-conditioning and heat pump field since 1993 –as a partner of the Hungarian 

Ministry of Environment– one of it’s main tasks to ensure, to spread the “good practice”, the closed circuit service 

technology to handle and phase out ODSs (and newly the fluorine based GHGs too) through its member 

companies and certified personnel. HRACA is a member of the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration European 

Association (AREA) in order to gain the knowledge to fulfil its aims on the highest level. Mr. Attila Zoltan has no 

proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, but does consulting for organisations seeking to phase out ODSs. Mr. Attila 

Zoltan’s spouse has no interest in matters related to the Protocol. 

AIII.6a Disclosure of Interest Declarations MBTOC - Soils 

Marten Barel Netherlands (Non-A5) 

Mr. Marten Barel, a member of MBTOC since 2002, is a consultant. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs. Since 1999 he has worked as a consultant and trainer in MLF methyl bromide projects for GTZ, UNDP 

and UNIDO. For more than 30 years he has provided growers, fumigators and companies with specialist technical 

advice and training in methods of controlling soilborne pests and soil pasteurisation/ disinfestation techniques in 

nurseries and horticultural crop production. For 40 years (until 1999) he owned a fumigation / soil disinfestation 

company that used methyl bromide until it was phased-out in the early 1980s, and then developed alternatives to 

methyl bromide e.g. negative pressure steaming techniques. His social partner and children do not work for 

organisations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, and have no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is currently funded by the Ministry of VROM in the 

Netherlands. 

Antonio Bello Spain (Non-A5) 

Dr Antonio Bello Pérez is a full time Research Professor at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 

Madrid, Spain. The institute has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of the environmental 

impact of methyl bromide. Dr Bello Pérez has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for 

organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for UNEP, Implementing 

Agencies and Governments, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by his 

institution, which in turn receives contributions for this travel from national projects. 

Mohamed Besri (co-chair) Morocco (A5) 

Prof. Mohamed Besri, is a full time Professor of Plant Pathology and Integrated Disease Management at the 

Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco (HII IAVM). The HII IAVM has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses specialists in Soil-borne Plant Pathogens and MLF 

projects (strawberries, bananas, cut flowers). It advises the Ministry of Agriculture on all aspects of alternatives to 

Methyl Bromide. Dr Besri has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs . Dr Besri works occasionally as a consultant to 

UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Neither Dr Besri’s spouse, business partner or dependant 

children living at same home work for or consults for any organization which has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do 

any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for 

organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Costs associated to travel, communication, and others related to 

participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone 

Secretariat. 

Aocheng Cao China (A5) 

Prof. Dr. Aocheng Cao is a Research Professor at the Institute of Plant Protection, Chinese Academy of 

Agricultural Sciences focusing on research in pesticide sciences. The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 

a non-profit organization, is interested in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because soil pathogens and 

nematodes are important pests in China and alternatives to methyl bromide are urgently needed. Dr Cao has no

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

their alternatives or substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase-out ODSs. His spouse also 

works for the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 
194 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Protocol as it conducts research on pest control, but has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, nor does she own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or perform 

consultancy for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Expenses related to Dr Cao’s attendance to MBTOC 

meetings are paid by UNEP. 

Peter Caulkins USA (Non-A5) 

Dr Peter Caulkins is the Associate Director in the Special Review and Reregistration Division in the Office of 

Pesticide Programs in the U.S.EPA. The U.S. EPA has sole authority for the regulation of all pesticide use in the 

U.S. and therefore has a strong interest in the Montreal Protocol’s phase-out of methyl bromide. Neither Dr 

Caulkins nor his wife or their son have any proprietary interests in ODSs or their alternatives, own no stock in 

either ODS companies or companies providing alternatives and do not do any consulting for organizations seeking 

to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by EPA. 

Fabio Chaverri Costa Rica (A5) 

Mr Fabio Chaverri is a professor at the Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica where he works as a full time 

researcher on pesticide alternatives at the IRET (Central American Research Centre on Toxic Substances). The 

IRET has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol since its main objective is to implement alternatives for 

toxic substances with a strong environmental or human health impact, such as ODSs. Mr Chaverri has no 

proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

their alternatives or substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He occasionally 

works as a consultant for UNDP and UNEP, governments and companies on matters related to the Montreal 

Protocol. His spouse does not work for or consult for any organization with has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol and has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor does she own stock in 

companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or consult for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs . Mr Chaverri’s travel expenses to cover attendance to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 

Ariane Elmas Lebanon (A5) 

Ms Ariane Elmas was formerly the project manager of a “Trade and Environment” project funded by UNEP, 

managed by UNDP and implemented by the Ministry of Environment in Lebanon. This project published a report 

on the effects of trade liberalization in Lebanon with special focus on products where methyl bromide is used and 

includes an annual profitability analysis and a cost benefit analysis comparing the Methyl Bromide alternatives 

used for each crop. Ms Elmas, is an economist and is currently the Project Manager at the UNDP in Lebanon. The 

UNDP has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is one of its implementing agencies and as 

such manages the MB phase out project implemented in Lebanon under the coordination of the Ministry of the 

Environment. Neither Ms Elmas, nor her spouse or their dependant children have any proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes or 

consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Expenses related to Ms Elmas’ attendance to MBTOC 

meetings is paid by UNEP. 

Abraham Gamliel Israel (Non-A5) 

Dr Abraham Gamliel is a full time senior researcher on methods and technologies for pest control and pesticide 

application at the Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Organization, Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel 

.He is also an adjunct professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel. 

ARO Volcani Center has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it is the research and 

development institute for solving the farmer’s problem and for developing environmentally safe crop production. 

Dr Gamliel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant for the Government, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Neither his spouse nor their children work for or consult for organizations having an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol nor do they have a proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, own stock in 

companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Dr Gamliel’s travel expenses to attend MBTOC 

meetings are paid by the Ministry of Agriculture of Israel. 

Saad Hafez USA (Non-A5) 

Prof. Dr. Saad L. Hafez is a full Professor of Nematology at the University of Idaho, working at the Parma 

Research and Extension Center. The University of Idaho has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol as it 

conducts research on methyl bromide alternatives for nematode control. Dr Hafez has no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or 

substitutes and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr. Hafez occasionally works as a 

consultant for UNDP, UNEP, and UNIDO, Governments, companies and others on projects relating to Methyl 

Bromide alternatives. Dr. Hafez’s spouse children do not work for or consult for any organization with an interest 

in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. His spouse and their dependant children have no proprietary interest in 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs and do not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Costs of travel to enable Dr Hafez to attend 

MBTOC meetings are paid by the University of Idaho. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 195

George Lazarovits Canada (Non-A5) 

Dr George Lazarovits is a research scientist at the Southern Crop Protection and Food Research Center of 

Agriculture and Agrifood Canada (AAFC). He is employed as a fulltime research scientist to investigate aspects of 

plant pathology involved with management of soilborne plant pathogens. AAFC has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because Canada has a vested interest in eliminating ozone- depleting substances such as methyl 

bromide, which are still being used by Canadian growers and Industries. AAFC, in collaboration with Environment 

Canada, is charged with overseeing the phase-out of ozone depleting products. Dr Lazarovits has no proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or those 

manufacturing alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not act as consultant for organizations seeking to phase 

out ODSs, other than non profit government agencies charged with enforcing the regulations of the Montreal 

Protocol. He is involved in advising as a consultant to Environment Canada (EC) on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol, including evaluation of critical use nominations submitted to them by Canadian growers or 

Industries seeking exemptions for use of MB under CUE. Such nominations, if approved by EC, are eventually 

adjudicated by members of MBTOC. Dr Lazarovits’ spouse has no involvement whatsoever with any issues or has 

any interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol or any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. 

She does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult 

for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. They have no dependent children living with them and their children 

have no involvement in any businesses dealing with issues that are in any way related to the Montreal Protocol. 

Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid for by AACF, and occasionally Environment Canada, from A Base budgets. 

Nahum Marbán-Mendoza Mexico (A5) 

Dr Nahum Marbán-Mendoza is a full-time professor of Integrated Pest Management and Plant Nematology at the 

Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo in the graduate programme of crop protection. He has over 25 years 

experience in the research and development of non-chemical alternatives to control plant parasitic nematodes 

associated with different crops in Central America and Mexico. Dr Marbán-Mendoza was MBTOC co-chair from 

2002 to 2005. He has also assisted implementing agencies of the Montreal Protocol (UNEP, UNIDO) with methyl 

bromide phase-out programs in Mexico and Guatemala; occasionally he receives funds for wages and travel. 

Neither Dr Marbán nor his spouse or their daughter have ever had proprietary interest or owned stocks in a 

company producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes, nor have they ever consulted for organizations seeking 

to phase out ODSs Costs related to Dr Marbán’s participation in MBTOC activities are paid by UNEP. 

Melanie K. Miller Belgium (Non-A5) 

Dr Melanie Miller, a member of MBTOC since 1993, is a consultant on methyl bromide and alternative 

technologies. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in 

companies producing ODS or alternatives. She has authored a large number of papers and publications about 

methyl bromide alternatives for UNEP and other government bodies. She is a reviewer of project proposals for 

MLF and GEF methyl bromide projects, and has provided technical assistance to many methyl bromide projects in 

Article 5 countries. She was a sector expert in the World Bank’s Ozone Operations Review Group (OORG) from 

1999, member/adviser of the TEAP Economic Options Committee (EOC) Task Force on Methyl Bromide in 1996-

1998, and analysed data for the TEAP Task Force reports on MLF replenishment in 2002 and 2005. Her spouse is 

an international expert on technical and legal aspects of the Montreal Protocol and currently works as a consultant. 

Her spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives. The cost of travel to MBTOC meetings is paid from her own personal funds and 

sometimes by UNEP, at least in part. 

Andrea Minuto Italy (Non-A5) 

Dr Andrea Minuto is a full time assistant professor at the University of Torino (c/o Agroinnova) in Italy. 

Agroinnova has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of the research conducted on soilborne 

pest and disease management. Dr Minuto has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and 

does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. He does consulting (as 

Agroinnova) for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs and also works occasionally as a consultant for 

Implementing Agencies and Governments on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse does not work 

or consul for organizations which have an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol or organizations seeking 

phase-out of ODS, nor does she have any proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or own stock 

in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by 

Agroinnova, which receives contributions from the Italian Ministry of Environment, Territory and Sea.

Kazufumi Nishi Japan (Non-A5) 

Dr Kazufumi Nishi is a Chief Researcher at the National Institute of Vegetable and Tea Science of Japan (NIVTS). 

He conducts research on plant disease control techniques, particularly physical control methods. Dr. Nishi has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by the International Department at MAFF. 

Marta Pizano (co-chair) Colombia (A5) 

Ms Marta Pizano is a consultant on methyl bromide alternatives, particularly for cut flower production, and has 

actively promoted methyl bromide alternatives among growers in many countries. She is a regular consultant for 
196 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

the Montreal Protocol Multilateral Fund (MLF) and its implementing agencies. In this capacity, she has 

contributed to the methyl bromide phase-out programs in nearly twenty Article 5 countries around the world, 

assisting growers with the adoption of sustainable alternatives and the implementation of IPM programs. She is a 

frequent speaker at national and international methyl bromide conferences and has authored numerous articles and 

publications on alternatives to this fumigant. She has been a member of MBTOC since 1998 and a co-chair since 

2005. Neither Ms Pizano nor her husband or their children own stock or have proprietary interest in companies 

producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Costs associated to travel, communication, and others related to 

participation in the TEAP, MBTOC, and relevant Montreal Protocol meetings, are paid by UNEP’s Ozone 

Secretariat. 

Ian Porter (co-chair) Australia (Non-A5) 

Dr Ian Porter is the Statewide Leader of Plant Pathology with the Victorian Department of Primary Industries 

(DPI). DPI has an interest in developing sustainable control measures for plant pathogens and biosecurity. He is a 

member of a number of National Committees regulating ODS, has led the Australian research program on methyl 

bromide alternatives for soils and has 26 years experience in researching sustainable methods for soil disinfestation 

of plant pathogens with over 200 research publications. He has been a member of MBTOC since 1997, Soils sub 

committee chair since 2001 and MBTOC Co-chair since 2005. Neither Dr Ian Porter, wife or children have any 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Dr Porter is presently assisting national research agencies in Australia develop 

national priorities for IPM and soil health. He has acted occasionally as a key consultant for UNEP and UNIDO in 

developing programmes to assist China, Mexico and CEIT countries to replace methyl bromide. The Victorian DPI 

has in the past made in-kind contributions to attend MBTOC and UNEP meetings, but provides no support at 

present. In 2007, Dr Porter funds his own participation. The Australian Federal Government Research Fund and 

funds obtained through the Ozone Secretariat have provided support to finance travel and expenses for MBTOC 

activities. 

James D. Schaub USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. James D. Schaub is an economist and Director of the Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-benefit Analysis, 

Office of the Chief Economist, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Dr. Schaub is employed full 

time within the Office of the Chief Economist, USDA in Washington D.C. The USDA has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its interest in environmentally sound agricultural production systems 

and the protection stored commodities. Further, USDA is responsible for protection of animal and plant health 

from quarantine pests. Dr. Schaub has no proprietary interests in alternatives or substitute ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organization on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse nor dependant children living at same home work for or consult for any 

organization which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do any of them have any proprietary 

interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, nor do any of them own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC 

meetings is paid by Office of the Chief Economist, USDA. 

Sally Schneider USA (Non-A5) 

Dr. Sally Schneider is a National Program Leader at the United States Department of Agriculture. Dr. Schneider is 

a full time National Program Leader for Horticulture, Pathogens, and Germplasm at the Agricultural Research 

Service, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A. The Agricultural Research Service has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because they are the in-house research agency for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Dr. 

Schneider has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies 

producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. Dr. Schneider does not work, occasionally or otherwise, as a consultant to UN, UNEP, MLF, 

Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr. Schneider 

does not have a spouse, business partner, social partner, or dependant children living in same home. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by United States Department of Agriculture. 

Dr. J.L. (Stappies) Staphorst South Africa (A5) 

Dr. J.L. (Stappies) Staphorst is a soil microbiologist at the Plant Protection Research Institute of the Agricultural 

Research Council of South Africa. Dr Staphorst is a full time senior researcher, advisor and mentor in the Plant 

Pathology and Microbiology Division of the Institute in Pretoria, South Africa. The Plant Protection Research 

Institute has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it houses the specialist Soil-borne Plant 

Diseases Unit and forms part of the Public Support Services Division that advises the Department of Agriculture 

on all aspects of plant diseases, pests and pesticides. Dr Staphorst has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does no consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Staphorst works occasionally as a consultant 

to UNEP on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. His spouse has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does no consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP 

with logistical support from the Plant Protection Research Institute. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 197

Akio Tateya Japan (Non-A5) 

Mr. Akio Tateya is a Technical Adviser at Syngenta Japan K.K. a pesticide producing company, which does not 

produce substitutes to methyl bromide. He also a technical adviser for the Japan Fumigation Technology 

Association, a non-profit body that is financially supported by the Japanese Government and companies producing 

methyl bromide and its substitutes. He conducts work for Syngenta Japan K.K. on a contract basis for a 

consultancy fee; he acts as a nominal member and adviser of the Japan Fumigation Technology Association, for 

which he is not paid. He is also a member of the Japanese delegation attending the Meeting of the Parties and 

Open-ended Working Groups, acting as technical adviser on matters related to the Protocol. He has been 

occasionally asked to attend panels or meetings at the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. He has no 

proprietary or any other kind of interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS, nor does he own any stocks in 

companies producing either ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not work for any organization 

seeking to phase out ODS. His spouse and children do not work for organizations with an interest in the Montreal 

Protocol. Travel expenses to enable attendance to MBTOC meetings and other meetings related to the Montreal 

Protocol are paid by the Japan Fumigation Technology Association. He receives no funding from the Japanese 

Government. 

Alejandro Valeiro Argentina (A5) 

Mr Alejandro Valeiro is the National Coordinator of the PROZONO Project (MLF/UNDP project ARG/02/G61) at 

the National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA) of Argentina, based at the Famaillá INTA ́s 

Experimental Station in Tucumán Province, Argentina. The INTA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal 

Protocol because it is the national counterpart for implementing MLF methyl bromide phase-out projects, which 

are coordinated by the National Ozone Unit. Mr Valeiro has no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes and does not perform 

permanent consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant to the 

MLF, Implementing Agencies, on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Valeiro’s spouse consults for 

UNDP, which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it implements MLF projects in 

Argentina. Neither Mr Valeiro, nor his spouse or dependant children have proprietary interest in ODS or their 

alternatives or substitutes, and do not own stock in companies producing ODS alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. 

Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 

Nick Vink South Africa (A5) 

Prof. Dr. Nick Vink is Chair of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of Stellenbosch, South 

Africa. He is a full time Professor at the University of Stellenbosch. The University has no interest in the topics of 

the Montreal Protocol. Dr Vink has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to any organisation on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol. Neither his spouse or dependant children work for or consult for any organization which has an 

interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, or own stock in companies producing ODS or their alternatives or substitutes. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 

James Wells USA (Non-A5) 

Mr. James Wells is the President of Environmental Solutions Group, LLC (ESG), a regulatory consulting firm in 

Sacramento, California. He was invited to join MBTOC in 1993 primarily because of his experience in pesticide 

regulatory programs, especially with methyl bromide and methyl bromide alternatives. He worked for the State of 

California pesticide regulatory program for 27 years and was the Director of the California Department of 

Pesticide Regulation from 1991 to 1999. Dr. Wells has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He does not 

consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. However, ESG consults with several agricultural 

organizations seeking Critical Use Exemptions for the use of methyl bromide. These organizations are; the 

California Strawberry Commission (CSC), the California Strawberry Nursery Association (CSNA), the Garden 

Rose Council (GRC) and the California Association of Garden and Nursery Centers (CANGC). Together with his 

staff he prepares and submits CUEs for the CSNA, GRC and CANGC to the USEPA. His spouse works for the 

California Department of Justice, which has no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult with organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by ESG. 

AIII.6b Disclosure of Interest Declarations MBTOC - QSC 

Jonathan Banks, Australia (Non-A5) 

Dr. Jonathan Banks, Chair of TEAP’s QPS Task Force, is a private consultant. He was a member of the 1992 

Methyl Bromide Assessment and from 1993 to 1998 and 2001 to 2005 co-chaired the Methyl Bromide TOC. He 

worked as a Research Scientist with the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research 

Organization (CSIRO) from1972 to 1999 on grain storage technologies, including use of improved use of 

fumigants. He is co-inventor of carbonyl sulfide, an alternative fumigant to methyl bromide in some applications. 

Patent rights have been assigned to his employer, CSIRO. Dr Banks has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 
198 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. He 

has stock in Brambles Ltd, a company that inter alia leases wooden pallets for freight. The pallets may or may not 

be treated with methyl bromide or alternatives. His spouse is co-owner of their commercial organic apple orchard. 

She has no financial interests relating to ozone-depleting substances. He has served on some national committees 

concerned with ODS and their control, and within the last 4 years has received contracts from UNEP, and other 

institutions and public companies related to methyl bromide alternatives and grain storage technology--including 

training in fumigation (methyl bromide and alternatives) and fumigation technology and recapture systems for 

methyl bromide. In 2005 and 2006 he received some support from UNEP for TEAP and MBTOC activities. Other 

funding for his MBTOC activities has been through grants or contracts from the Department of Environment and 

Heritage, Australia or from personal contributions. 

Chris Bell UK (Non-A5) 

Dr. Christopher Hugh Bell, is a Fellow at the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), Department of Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs, at York, UK, where he led research into fumigation technology, including studies on 

methyl bromide and potential alternatives which were sponsored by UK government agencies and private 

companies, until his retirement in 2004. He is also a Regional Editor for the Journal of Stored Products Research 

for Europe and Africa, an Elsevier journal publishing original research addressing problems encountered in the 

storage of durable commodities. Dr. Bell has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, and does not represent 

organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He works occasionally as a consultant to governments and companies 

on matters related to methyl bromide use or replacement, or the Montreal Protocol. Travel and subsistence to 

attend MBTOC meetings has been paid by the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 

or by UNEP. 

Fred Bergweff Netherlands (Non-A5) 

Mr Fred Bergwerff is the General Manager for ECO2 B.V., a company that provides disinfestation services 

through controlled atmospheres technology and equipment, and related consulting services. He is employed in a 

full time capacity with responsibilities for joint-venture partnerships, technical assistance, training and promotion 

of good practices in the structural, commodity, quarantine and port disinfestation industries, particularly 

specialising in QPS and ISPM-15 treatments. ECO2 does not have a commercial relationship with any fumigant or 

pesticide manufacturers/registrants. ECO2 has been involved in research trials on MB alternatives and has assisted 

companies to adopt MB alternatives for structures, stored commodities and pre-shipment and quarantine 

treatments. ECO2 has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its expertise in disinfestation 

and pest control, particularly non-chemical treatments. Other than controlled atmospheres and the company ECO2 

BV, Mr Bergwerff and his business partners in ECO2 have no proprietary interest in ODS or other alternatives to 

ODS, and do not own stock in companies that manufacture ODS or other alternatives to ODS. He carries out 

consulting work for organizations and companies that are seeking to phase out ODS. Mr Bergwerff’s wife owns 

shares in ECO2, has no proprietary interest in ODS or other alternatives to ODS, and does not own stock in 

companies manufacturing ODS or other alternatives to ODS. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by ECO2, which 

receives no contribution for this travel from any other company or organisation. 

Kathy M. Dalip Belize (A5) 

Dr. Kathy M Dalip is an Entomologist at the Caribbean Agriculture Research and Development Institute (CARDI), 

which has headquarters in Trinidad and offices in twelve member countries. Kathy works full-time at the CARDI 

Belize Unit, Central Farm, Western Highway, Cayo District, Belize, Central America. Between 2000 and 2005, 

Kathy was stationed at the CARDI Jamaica Unit where she was a member of the Jamaica Methyl Bromide 

Working Group. Her work at CARDI is focused in the areas of integrated pest management (IPM) and organic 

agriculture. Hence, her emphasis is on finding non-chemical pest control options to improve production and 

economic feasibility for farmers. Kathy has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and has not done consulting for 

organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by for by the Ozone Secretariat of 

UNEP. 

Ricardo T Deang Philippines (A5) 

Dr Ricardo Deang is a retired Deputy Administrator for Pesticides of the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA) 

– a government regulatory office for fertilizers and pesticides – since April 1996. He was responsible for 

registration, restriction, and banning of pesticides when imminent hazards are posed; and certification of pesticide 

applicators and fumigators. FPA has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because the Philippines is a 

signatory to the Montreal Protocol and the office restricts/monitors methyl bromide importation and use. Prior to 

this position Mr. Deang worked as a research entomologist on biological control. Currently Mr Deang is Chairman 

of the Board of a consultancy firm, Management and Executive Network, Inc. He has no proprietary interest on 

alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes 

to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. His wife and their 

children have no proprietary interest on alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, do not own stock in companies 

producing ODSs or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and do not engage in consulting for organizations seeking 

to phase out ODSs. They have no interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is 

paid by UNEP. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 199

Patrick Ducom France (non-A5) 

Dr. Jacques François Patrick Ducom, Agronomy Engineer, is a long standing MBTOC member and head of the 

Laboratoire National Denrées Stockées (LNDS), Plant Protection Service, Ministry of Agriculture, France. Dr 

Ducom is a full time researcher in fumigation LNDS. He works occasionally as a consultant for Implementing 

Agencies of the Multilateral Fund on matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Dr Ducom has no proprietary 

interest on alternatives or substitute to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODSs or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not engage in consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid from the LNDS budget 

Kenneth Glassey New Zealand (Non-A5) 

Mr Kenneth Logan Glassey is a Senior Biosecurity Adviser at the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF). 

Ken Glassey is a full time adviser on Phytosanitary Treatments and Treatment Operators at the Ministry of 

Agriculture and Forestry Head Office, Wellington, New Zealand. MAF has an interest in the topics of the 

Montreal Protocol because quarantine and preshipment treatments uses a significant amount of methyl bromide 

(218 tonnes in 2004). Current responsibilities cover researching, developing and reviewing New Zealand’s import 

standards including operational standards such as treatments for imported commodities. This also involves 

monitoring quality and adequacy, initiating remedial action as necessary, and the provision of advice on the 

practical application and implications of such standards. Mr Glassey has been involved in QPS inspection and 

treatments for 20 years with particular expertise with forest produce, and worked in forest management for 11 

years prior to that. Mr Glassey has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not work as a consultant to implementing agencies on matters related to the 

Montreal Protocol. Mr Glassey’s partner living in same home does not work for or consults for any organization, 

which has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol. She has no proprietary interest alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to TEAP/TOC/TSB meetings is paid by 

MAF. 

Mr Alfredo T. Gonzalez Philippines (A5) 

Mr Gonzalez is president of Pestcon Pest Management and General Services, a company with an interest in the 

Montreal Protocol because it uses methyl bromide in the for Quarantine and pre-shipment treatments as well as 

ISPM 15 treatments for wood packaging materials. Mr Gonzalez, has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, and does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. 

Presently he is the general consultant for the implementation of the Methyl Bromide Phase-out program in the 

Philippines for the Government of his country, under the Department of Natural Resources- Philippine Ozone 

Desk (DENR-POD) in cooperation with the Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA), which is directly related to 

the Montreal Protocol. Neither Mr Gonzalez’s wife or their children have any proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes in ODSs. Expenses related to Mr Gonzalez’s attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid by UNEP. 

Darka Hamel Croatia (A5) 

Dr. Darka Hamel is an entomologist responsible the protection of stored products. Dr Hamel is a full time 

executive manager at the Institute for Plant Protection in Agriculture and Forestry of the Republic Croatia (PPI). 

The PPI has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because companies using methyl bromide for 

treatment in accordance with ISPM 15 are authorised to do so in accordance with the PPI recommendation. Dr. 

Hamel has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consulting for organizations seeking to phase out 

ODSs. Dr. Hamel works occasionally as a consultant to the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water 

Management or the Ministry for Environmental Protection and Physical Planning regarding legislation on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to MBTOC meetings is paid by UNEP. 

Michelle Marcotte (co-chair) Canada (Non-A5) 

Ms Michelle Marcotte was a member of the 1992 Methyl Bromide Assessment and subsequently a member of the 

Methyl Bromide Technical Options Committee between 1992 and 2005; she was confirmed as Co-Chair in 2005. 

Until 1993 she worked for MDS Nordion, a supplier of radiation processing equipment which is an alternative to 

the use of methyl bromide in some commodity and quarantine situations. Since then, Ms Marcotte, through 

Marcotte Consulting, has provided consulting services to governments and agri-food companies in eight countries 

on agri-environmental issues, food technology, regulatory affairs and radiation processing. Marcotte Consulting 

has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because of its long time market development work in food 

irradiation, an alternative to some methyl bromide uses, and because of its interest in food processing, food safety 

and trade. In the field of methyl bromide alternatives, Ms Marcotte has published case studies for pest control in 

food processing, for stored commodities, for alternatives for quarantine and for greenhouse use. She is a member 

of the Canada Industry-Government Methyl Bromide Working Group and the Canada-US Methyl Bromide 

Working Group; both organizations work to achieve phase out of methyl bromide in the agri-food sector. Marcotte 

has consulted to companies, industry associations, the International Atomic Energy Agency and US AID on 

irradiation as a methyl bromide alternative in food processing, quarantine and trade. She has also prepared 

consulting reports summarising research in methyl bromide alternatives and case studies on food processing for 
200 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

US Environmental Protection Agency. Ms Marcotte has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to 

ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Ms Marcotte’s 

spouse works for United States Department of Agriculture managing research in methyl bromide alternatives and 

is a member of MBTOC. He does not have proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODS and does not 

own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs. Ms Marcotte receives a consulting 

contract from the Government of Canada, Environment Canada. The funds for Ms Marcotte for travel to TEAP, 

MBTOC and Montreal Protocol meetings and to support her work on the MBTOC are provided by the 

Government of Canada, Environment Canada. 

Takashi Misumi Japan (Non-A5) 

 Mr. Takashi Misumi, member of MBTOC since 2005 is a senior researcher at the Yokohama Plant Protection 

Station (YPPS). Mr. Misumi is a full time Researcher at the Quarantine Disinfestation Technology Section, 

Research Division of YPPS. He has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase out ODSs. Neither his spouse nor their children work for organizations with has an interest in the 

topics of the Montreal Protocol. Expenses related to the attendance of MBTOC meetings are paid by International 

department of MAFF. 

David M Okioga Kenya (A5) 

Dr. David Okioga is a founding member of MBTOC, joining in 1992. He was MBTOC co-chair between 1997 

and 2002. Dr Okioga was the Director, National Plant Quarantine Services of Kenya for sixteen years. He also 

served as the Coordinator in Agricultural Botany under the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Secretary to the 

Ministry of Agriculture on Plant Breeder's Rights, Member of the National Agricultural Research Centre, National 

Horticultural Research Centre, National Potato Research Centre, and the National Committee for the National 

Genebank. Dr. Okioga has undertaken a number of contracts from the African Unity (then Organization of the 

African Unity), FAO and UNEP. Some of these consultancies were related to crop protection, where methyl 

bromide was considered as the chemical of choice for soil fumigation, whereas others were on strengthening the 

Montreal Protocol policies on ODS phase out in the African region (including methyl bromide). In 1995, Dr. 

Okioga was appointed Coordinator, of the National Ozone Unit (NOU) of Kenya by the Ministry of Environment 

and Natural Resources, Kenya, in consultation with UNDP, a post that he still holds at present. Dr. Okioga's main 

responsibility is strengthening the government of Kenya in meeting the requirements of the Montreal Protocol and 

in phasing out of ODS in the country. Travel and expenses related to his attendance to MBTOC meetings are paid 

by UNEP. 

Jordi Ruidavets Spain (Non-A5) 

Dr. Jordi Riudavets is a Researcher at the Institute for Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA) of Spain. He is 

a full time entomologist at the Crop Protection Division, with experience in the development and transfer of 

integrated pest management (IPM) programs for stored products and horticultural crops. The IRTA has an interest 

in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because is a state-owned company of the Catalan Government, and its 

activities are concerned with scientific research and technology transfer in the areas of agriculture, aquaculture and 

the agrifood industry. Dr. Riudavets has no proprietary interest alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own 

stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations 

seeking to phase out ODSs. He occasionally works as a consultant to the Spanish Government, food companies, 

pest control companies and private companies with interest in matters related to the Montreal Protocol. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment. 

Christoph Reichmuth Germany (Non-A5) 

Prof. Dr. Christoph Reichmuth is chemist and responsible for stored product protection. Dr Reichmuth is a full 

time director of the Institute for Stored Product Protection of the Federal Biological Research Centre for 

Agriculture and Forestry in Berlin, Germany, of the German Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer 

Protection, Germany. The Federal Ministry for Nutrition, Agriculture and Consumer Protection together with the 

Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety has a pronounced interest to 

replace methyl bromide as quickly as possible, due to the strongly expressed political interest and public opinion in 

Germany. Dr Reichmuth has no proprietary interest, patent for production of phosphine from magnesium 

phosphide in a generator with the company Degesch Detia, Germany, patent for the treatment of stored products 

and organic materials (wood) with inert atmospheres with the company Buse, Germany, patent for pheromone 

traps for Lepidopteran pests with the Max-Planck-Society, Germany, at present there are no royalties paid from the 

patents to Dr Reichmuth. He gave and gives advice to private companies in Germany to obtain critical use 

exemptions for methyl bromide in helping to understand the English forms of UNEP/TEAP, he works occasionally 

as a consultant to UNIDO, supporting projects or parties to replace methyl bromide. Travel to MBTOC meetings 

or related meetings concerning the phase-out of methyl bromide are paid by the German Ministry for Nutrition, 

Agriculture and Consumer Protection or by the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and 

Nuclear Safety. 

John Sansone USA (Non-A5) 

Mr John Sansone is the President and General Manager for SCC Products. He is employed in a full time capacity 

with responsibilities for sales, training, stewardship and as a consultant for end users in the residential, commodity, 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 201

quarantine and port fumigation industries. SCC Products has a commercial relationship with several 

fumigant/pesticide manufacturers/registrants, some of which offer products which are considered alternatives to 

MB. SCC Products has been involved in research trials in the food processing and stored commodities sectors. 

The firm was instrumental in the transition to alternatives for the residential fumigation marketplace and currently 

is transitioning alternatives into the commodity fumigation market. It is also involved in the implementation of 

recapture equipment for commodity fumigation companies in California. SCC Products has an interest in the topics 

of the Montreal Protocol because of its relationship and expertise in many fumigation areas. Mr Sansone has no 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or 

alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. He does not 

work as a consultant to the UN, UNEP, MLF, Implementing Agencies, Governments, companies, etc. on matters 

related to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Sansone has no relatives or business partners that work for or consult for any 

organization with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol nor does he have relatives or business partner 

having a proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, or who own stock in companies producing 

ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs or consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to 

MBTOC meetings is paid by SCC Products, which receives no contribution for this travel from anyone. 

Robert Taylor UK (Non-A5) 

Mr Robert Taylor retired from the Natural Resources Institute (NRI) of the United Kingdom in 2001. The NRI 

was a government establishment involved in biological/agricultural research, development and training, primarily 

in relation to developing countries. In recent years the NRI has become part of the University of Greenwich. Crop 

protection in both the pre- and post-harvest stages has always been a major feature of NRI’s research and 

development programmes. Pest management, including the use of fumigants, has always features strongly in such 

programmes. Mr Taylor has no proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to methyl bromide and does not 

own stock in companies consulting for organizations seeking to phase out the chemical. He works occasionally as 

a consultant to UN agencies including UNIDO and UNEP on matters relating to the Montreal Protocol. Mr Taylor 

has no relatives or business partners who work or consult for organizations, which have an interest in the topics of 

the Montreal Protocol, nor does he have relatives or business partners having proprietary interests in alternatives or 

substitutes to methyl bromide, or who own stock in companies producing alternatives or substitutes to methyl 

bromide, or who consult for companies seeking to phase out methyl bromide. Travel and subsistence for MBTOC 

meetings is paid for by the UK government and most recently by the Department for the Environment Farming and 

Rural Affairs and UNEP. 

Ken Vick USA (Non-A5) 

Dr Kenneth W. Vick is a Senior National Program Leader for methyl bromide alternatives research at the 

Agricultural Research Service (ARS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). As National Program 

Leader he helps lead the almost $20 million ARS research program to develop alternatives to the use of methyl 

bromide for soil and post-harvest applications. ARS has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because 

it was assigned lead responsibility for developing alternatives as the primary research arm of the USDA and 

because it was deemed to be of high priority by the United States Government. Dr Vick has no proprietary interest 

in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs and does not consult for any organization. His spouse, a MBTOC co-chair, consults for 

governments, NGOs and companies that have an interest in the phase out of methyl bromide because they are 

Parties to the Protocol or because they are investigating or developing food irradiation a methyl bromide 

alternative for some commodities and in some quarantine situation. She has no proprietary interest in alternatives 

or substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Dr Vick's travel to MBTOC and Montreal Protocol 

meetings is paid by the USDA Agriculture Research Service. 

Chris Watson UK (Non-A5) 

Mr.Christopher Russell Watson is a MBTOC member since 1992. He works for Igrox Ltd in the UK as Chairman 

a part-time position since he is presently semi-retired. Mr Watson has been involved in the fumigation industry 

using both methyl bromide and other fumigants for 40 years. Together with his wife he formed Igrox Ltd in 1976, 

which is now one of the largest fumigation and pest control servicing companies in the UK. For the past 20 years 

he has been involved in working closely with government agencies in the UK to develop safe and efficient 

fumigation practices and procedures. Igrox Ltd has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because it 

supplies services and products that are alternatives to methyl bromide, as well as continuing to provide services 

using methyl bromide in situations where it is still necessary. Mr Watson owns stock in Igrox Ltd, and 

occasionally carries out consultancy work for agencies seeking to phase out ODS's which have included the UK 

government agencies as well as private companies. His spouse doesn’t not own stocks in Igrox Ltd and has no 

proprietary interests in alternatives or substitutes for ODS's and does not consult for companies seeking to phase 

out ODS's. Travel to MBTOC meetings was subsidised by Igrox Ltd and the British Pest Control Association until 

2005. Presently, Mr Watson covers travel expenses from his own personal funds with some assistance from the 

UK Government (DEFRA). 
202 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

Mr Eduardo Willink Argentina (A5) 

Mr Eduardo Willink is Director of Special Disciplines and Head of the Agricultural Zoology Department of the 

Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombrés Tucumán, Argentina. He is a full time researcher in 

entomology who leads a team of researchers working on quarantine treatments, systems approach and pest host 

status, and is a member of the Technical Panel on Phytosanitary Treatments within IPPC, FAO. The organization 

has an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol because its mission is to resolve regional agro-industrial 

problems with the least impact on the environment. Mr Willink has no proprietary interest in alternatives or 

substitutes to ODSs, does not own stock in companies producing ODS or alternatives or substitutes to ODSs and 

does not consulting for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Neither his spouse or dependant children work 

for or consult for organizations with an interest in the topics of the Montreal Protocol, nor do they have any 

proprietary interest in alternatives or substitutes to ODSs, own stock in companies producing ODS or their 

alternatives or substitutes or consult for organizations seeking to phase out ODSs. Travel to TOC meetings is paid 

by UNEP. 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

MBTOC – SUBCOMMITTEE SOILS 

Names Gender Affiliation Expertise Length 

of service 

Co-Chairs 

1. Mohamed Besri M Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire 

Hassan II (Academia) 

Researcher, particularly MB alts for vegetables. Pathologist (PhD) 

B 

2. Marta Pizano F Consultant Consultant, MB alts, particularly cut 

flower production and IPM. Pathologist (MSc) 

B 

3. Ian Porter M Department of Primary Industries 

(Government research) 

Researcher, soils MB use and alts, particularly fungal pathogens and IPM. Pathologist (PhD) 

B 

Members 

4. Marten Barel M Consultant Consultant, , specialist on soil 

fumigation, Substrates, Hydroponics, Steaming, Bio-fumigation and Solarization 

D 

5. Antonio Bello M Centro de Ciencias Medioambientales 

(Government research) 

Non-chemical alternatives. Pathologist. (PhD, Prof.) 

A 

6. Aocheng Cao M Chinese Academy of Agricultural 

Sciences (Government research) 

Researcher, soil alternatives, particularly in China (A5) context. Pathologist. (PhD) 

C 

7. Peter Caulkins M Associate Director, Special Review & 

Re-registration Division US EPA 

Registration of alternatives, regulatory issues (PhD) 

D 

8. Ariane Elmas F Totken Lebanon – consulting Economics and trade D 9. Fabio Chaverri M IRET-Universidad Nacional 

(Academia) 

Researcher, soil alternatives, including solarisation. Microbiologist. 

C 

10. Abraham Gamliel M Agricultural Research Organization, 

The Volcani Center, (Government Research) 

Alternatives for soils, horticulture. Pathologist (PhD) 

D 

11. Saad Hafez M University of Idaho (Academia) Soils alternatives, nematologist 

(PhD, Prof.) 

C 
204 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

12. George Lazarovits M Agriculture & Agri-food Canada 

(Government research) 

Researcher, non chemical control of soilborne pathogens (PhD) 

C 

13. Nahum Marbán Mendoza 

M Universidad Autonoma de Chapingo 

(Academia) 

Researcher, soils alternatives, particularly nematode problems (PhD, Prof.) 

C 

14. Melanie Miller F Consultant Consultant in MB alternatives use 

and policy (PhD) 

A 

15. Andrea Minuto M Agroinnova Universita Torino 

(Academia) 

Researcher, MB and alternatives in soils. Pathologist (PhD) 

D 

16. Kazufumi Nishi M Nat Institute of Vegetables and Tea 

Science (Government research) 

Nonchemical alts, particularly heat systems for soils (PhD) 

D 

17. James D. Schaub M United States Department of 

Agriculture (Government regulatory) 

Agricultural economist (PhD) C 

18. Sally Schneider F United States Department of 

Agriculture (Government research) 

Researcher in soils alts, particularly replant problems and propagative nursery material . Nematologist. PhD) 

C 

19. JL Staphorst M Plant Protection Research Institute 

(Parastatal research) 

 Soil Microbiologist (DSc) B 

20. Akio Tateya M Syngenta Japan K.K. Application of MB and alts, 

particularly in Japan 

A 

21. Alejandro Valeiro M Instituto Nacional de Tecnología 

Agropecuaria (Government research) 

Introduction/use of soils alts, including tobacco. Agronomist (MSc). 

C 

22. Nick Vink M University of Stellenbosch 

(Academia) 

Agricultural economics (PhD, Prof.) C 

23. Jim Wells M Environmental Solutions Group, LLC 

(Consultant) 

Registration and regulatory – MB and alternatives, soil uses 

A 

TOTALS 19 M 

4 F 

 4A 

4B 9C 6D 

A >10 years, B 5-10, C 2-5, D <2 years membership 
April 2007 TEAP Progress Report 

MBTOC SUBCOMMITTEE QUARANTINE, STRUCTURES AND COMMODITIES (QSC) 

Co-Chairs 1. Michelle Marcotte F Consultant Consultant, particularly food processing, 

regulations, structural and commodity treatments and irradiation 

A Can

Members 2. Jonathan Banks (Co-Chair Quarantine Task Force) 

M Consultant Consultant, postharvest, particularly nonchemical and gas technologies (fumigants, 

CA) and QPS uses of MB. Entomologist (Ph. D.) 

A Aust

3. Chris Bell M Consultant, formerly Central 

Science Laboratory (Government research) 

Postharvest technologies, particularly fumigants, phosphine; sulfuryl fluoride, controlled atmospheres and heat (Ph.D.) 

B UK 

4. Fred Bergwerff M Eco2, Netherlands Fumigator, specialist in non-MB systems, 

including heat. 

D Neth

5. Kathy Dalip F CABI Quarantine entomologist (Ph. D.) D Jam6. Ricardo Deang M Consultant Regulatory and registration. Entomologist 

(Ph. D.) 

A Phil

7. Patrick Ducom M Ministère de l’Agriculture 

(Government research) 

Postharvest and structural alternatives B Fran

8. Ken Glassey M MAFF, New Zealand Forester, government advisor on MB 

alternatives in forest products 

D New 

9. Eduardo Gonzalez M Fumigator Phosphine, QPS and non-QPS treatments. 

Structures, commodities. 

D Phil

10. Darka Hamel F Institute for Plant Protection 

in Agriculture and Forestry (Government) 

Postharvest and structural treatments, regulations 

D Croa

11. Takashi Misumi M MAFF (Government 

research) 

QPS expert D Japa

12. David Okioga M Ministry of Environment and 

Natural Resources (Government regulatory) 

Postharvest and QPS MB alternatives (Ph. D.) 

A Ken

13. Christoph Reichmuth M BBAGermany (Government 

research) 

Researcher, MB alternatives in postharvest/structures (Ph. D.) 

B Germ
206 April 2007 TEAP Progress Report

14. Jordi Riudavets M IRTA-Department of Plant 

Protection. (Government Research) 

IPM for stored products and horticultural crops (Ph. D.) 

D Spai

15. John Sansone M SCC Products (Fumigator) Fumigator, particular expertise in structures A US 16. Robert Taylor M Consultant Postharvest technology, specifically A5 uses A UK 17. Ken Vick M United States Department of 

Agriculture (Government research) 

Research in MB alternatives, incl. QPS. Entomologist (Ph. D.) 

A US 

18. Chris Watson M IGROX Ltd (Fumigator) Practical use of MB and alternatives 

including the use of phosphine, Sulfuryl Fluoride,CO2 and Heat Treatments for commodities(inc timber) and structures 

A UK 

19. Eduardo Willink M Ministry of Agriculture Quarantine entomologist (Ph. D.) D ArgeTOTALS M 

=16 

F =3 

 A= 8 

 B = 3 

 C = 0 

 D = 8 

 CEI

A >10 years, B 5-10, C 2-5, D <2 years membership